Dr Jean-Claude Worms of the European Science Foundation Threatens Critics of ESF Policy: He Should Resign or Be Sacked - Effective Immediately.

Obviously the European basic science funding flagship, the European Science Foundation (ESF) is in a sorry state if anything even akin to this can happen. I have the story from my math colleague here in Gothenburg, Olle Häggström's blog, and he refers further to Retraction Watch.

In short, astrophysicist Amaya Moro-Martin published an opinion piece in Nature, criticising current European and EU science policies (in particular funding cuts), among many other things mentioning the ESF as an peripheral actor in the dismantling of Portuguese science institutions:

There are too many examples to list, but here are some of the most prominent: since 2009, Italy has seen recruitment of scientists fall by 90% and the amount spent on basic research drop to nothing. In Spain, the amount of money spent on civilian research and development has dropped by 40%, and fewer than 10% of researchers who retire are being replaced. Since 2011, the budget of Greek research centres and universities has halved, with a freeze on hiring. Already reeling from budget cuts of 50% for universities and research centres, Portugal may now have to close half of its research units because of a flawed evaluation process supported by the European Science Foundation.

To this, the head of the ESF’s Science Support Office, Dr. Jean-Claude Worms reacts badly. But does he then send a reply to Nature, or even post a comment in the open commentary field attached to Moro-Martin's article? He does not. Instead, he behaves in astonishingly fable-like similarity to what you would expect by the animal suggested by his surname, sending the following letter to Moro-Martin (originally made public here):

Dear Amaya Moro-Martin,
The European Science Foundation hereby requests that you retract the following allegation contained within your opinion piece published on 8 October in Nature (Volume 514, Issue 7521). [Portugal may now have to close half of its research units] because of a flawed evaluation process supported by the European Science Foundation. The European Science Foundation refutes any allegation that the process was flawed and considers that the statement cited above is slanderous, as the independent work performed in the framework of the evaluation of FCT research units followed the best international practices. http://www.esf.org/serving-science/fct-rd-units-evaluation-by-esf.html. While the European Science Foundation is cited in your paper, it is highly regrettable that no one from our organisation was interviewed and no request for clarification made. In addition, and as you may be aware, the Portuguese national union for higher education has launched a formal legal action on the evaluation process, and this has not yet come to a conclusion. If your allegation is not publically retracted in Nature, the European Science Foundation will be compelled to take appropriate legal action.
Dr. Jean-Claude Worms
Head of Science Support Office European Science Foundation
jcworms@esf.org

That's right, a high representative and manager of a supposedly leading international science organisation is responding to criticism (the very blood of science) of this organisation's policies with threat of a libel lawsuit. This is not only way lower than any slimy worm would ever venture into the manure, it is formally completely unacceptable behaviour by a person in Worms' position of office. My colleague, Olle, is overly polite about it when asking the ESF chief executive, Martin Hynes, to have Dr. Worms' letter "retracted". My bid is this: Dr. Worms has conclusively proven that he has no place in any sort of science leadership position and should resign his office at ESF, effective immediately. If he does not, he should be be swiftly removed from this position of honour and trust, which he has so gravely abused.

The Conflict of Interest Claim Towards New AJOB Editorial Arrangement is not Sexist

The controversy surrounding the new editorial arrangement for the American Journal of Bioethics after Glenn McGee decided to step down in order to work full time as consultant for stem cell company CellTex (covered in former posts here, here and here) continues, now in the landscape of big science, in this news article in Nature.

In the article, new editor in chief, Summer Johnson McGee defends the decision of publisher Taylor & Francis to appoint her editor in chief against the criticism that this cements rather than resolves the conflict of interest created by Glenn McGee's move to industry:

Responding to questions from Nature, Summer Johnson McGee says that the journal has a conflict-of-interest policy that requires editors to withdraw from reviewing a manuscript if they perceive a conflict. She calls allegations that her appointment results from her relationship with her husband “baseless and sexist”.

Now, the firtst line of defense here has already been addressed by the critics, in particular by John Lantos, who resigned from the AJOB editorial board over this matter. And I happen to agree with John about how much of a wife-of-Ceasar-principle has to be applied in the case of defending the credibility of bioethics journals. Simply put: one of the well-known logics of conflicts of interests is that they tend to make you bad at spotting where the conflict is actualised in particular cases. Thus, the report c-o-i based on subjective perception principle is not by itself good enough. A broader margin of safety against suspicion is required to uphold the credibility of a leading ethics journal.

More interesting is Johnson McGee's second line of defense. The claim of "baselessness" is, of course a complete misnomer and question-begger. It is a fact that she and Glenn McGee are married and that, in virtue of that arrangement, vested interests of Glenn McGee are by default also such interests of Summer Johnson McGee. Therefore, I have argued, the conflict of interest is not resolved but rather sustained by switching from one to the other in the leading editorial management role of AJOB.

Now, this way of arguing is, Johnson McGee seems to hold, sexist. Well, Summer, allow me to retort that it is in fact this very line of defense of yours that is a case of sexism. The argument based on default economic relations between spouse holds regardless of the sex or gender of the people involved in this relationship. That is, my argument would have stuck just as much had the roles between you and Glenn been reversed (you being the one leaving the e-i-c position for industry, and Glenn taking up your managerial torch). What you seem to claim is that you should be let off the hook because you happen to be a woman. That, if anything, is a sexist line of argument.

If this is all there to say in defense of the new AJOB editorial arrangements, I would say that the state of things in the management of this journal appear to be even worse than what they appeared to be before. For I cannot convince myself that even Johnson McGee herself seriously believes in what she tries to sell through Nature. This, I would say is not the voice of conviction, but of desperation.

Has the journal Nature sold out to the alternative medicine industry and quack/fake science?

What to say about this move of the world's (by far) most prestigeous scientific journal?

 Well, this surely does not inspire much confidence:

We are grateful for the support of our sponsors, Saishunkan Pharmaceutical Co., ltd. and the Kitasato University Oriental Medicine Research Center.

And I'm sure the boost of the Nature bank balance was handsome. This suplementary issue will very probably also do wonders for the Nature impact factor, a commodity worth its weight in rhodium in these days when scientific publication and citation is a currency and – if stunts like this are becoming a habit among the leading journals – pretty soon not very much more than that. The Nature editors must be proud of being pioneers in this area.

One blogger with both insight and clout has so far concluded:

I'm left with the conclusion that, to their eternal shame, by publishing this issue, the editors of Nature have become willing shills for the TCM industry. Nature has sold out, and its editors and publisher should be called out for it.

But, please, judge for yourselves here (the supplement issue is apparently open access online) and read the comments so far....

Here, and here.

Ta!