|
From: Christine Burns [mailto:c_burns@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 May 2003 20:35
To: Bruce Alberts; Bill Wulf; Harvey Fineberg
Cc: Bill Colglazier; Suzanne Woolsey; Barbara Kline Pope; Peter
Raven; Stephen Mautner
Subject: Scientific Freedom vs Scientific Responsibility
A SECOND OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENTS
OF THE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING
AND MEDICINE
Copied to :
Dr Suzanne H Woolsey PhD
Chief Communicaitons Officer
National Academies of Sciences
From Christine Burns, M.Sc., B.Sc., C.Eng., M.B.C.S.
Member of the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism and
Former Vice President of Press for Change (www.pfc.org.uk)
Dear Presidents Alberts, Wulf and Fineberg
Almost three weeks ago I wrote to you from the UK to express
concern about the issues raised by your academies' publication
of the book "The Man Who Would Be Queen" by Prof. J.M.Bailey
of North-Western University.
After so long with no reply, and because it is possible that
my original letter may have gone astray, I am writing again.
I am also attaching a copy of that earlier letter to refresh
your memories. Furthermore, as I believe that other correspondents
have received responses via the communications office of the
publishing company itself, I am also copying this open letter
to Suzanne Woolsey.
In some ways I am grateful that you haven't replied to my previous
open letter as this affords the opportunity to update the expression
of my concerns in the light of events over the last three weeks.
Nevertheless, I would appreciate a reply on this occasion. A
considered reply please - not a cut and paste of the standard
one, for the core issue in this affair has now moved very quickly
from a concern about why you published such a shoddy peice of
work with the authority of your organisation, to the question
of how you have sought to defend that action in the light of
increasingly serious evidence of scientific fraud.
First and foremost I will state for the avoidance of doubt that
my concerns (and those of many others) are not about the right
of Mr Bailey to publish his peculiar, sexually-biassed, non-mainstream
ideas at all. America did not invent the concept of free speech
- your country's founders merely incorporated the idea into the
constitution in a way which gave inadequate attention to the
parallel requirement for responsibility. In my view Mr Bailey
is entitled to publish his views by all means, just as people
are entitled to decide they want to teach creationism in place
of Darwinism. The question is about the implications of WHERE
his ideas have been published, and the false stamp of authority
which they acquire as a result. That is, unless you are of the
view that the academies' imprimatur should carry less authority
than I was given to believe that it did.
So, this debate is not about freedom of speech or its subset
"academic freedom". It is about the fact that all rights
come with responsibilities attached, and that is as true in the
academic sphere as in the world at large - especially when the
matter at hand is a book which purports to bridge between the
two worlds and present "authentic science" in a form
which is intended to be accessible to the public.
In my own country certain media carry authority, and hence a
responsibility for the way in which they lend that authority
to ideas they disseminate. Examples include the BBC - and until
recently used to include the London Times. At the other end of
the scale there are plenty of tabloid newspapers and these enjoy
a very wide license to print what they like, regardless of its
accuracy or effect. Those imprints are not taken seriously however,
just as the London Times is nowadays taken less seriously too
as a newspaper of record, because it let go of the editorial
discipline required to maintain people's unquestionning trust
in its word.
I would urge you to think about that object lesson with care
as I proceed. Where do you wish to remain in the landscape of
publishing? Are you to remain a "BBC type" or become
a "Times type" ? Do you pursue absolute integrity or
sales figures?
The standard reply which Suzanne has so far sent to your concerned
correspondents appears to view the issues raised by Professor
Bailey's book as a simple difference in academic opinion, which
should be addressed by the normal process of adducing more and
better evidence or opinions to support another view. This naive
interpretation is wide of the mark however. Let us examine the
emerging evidence for why:
1. First and most importantly there is the emerging possibility
of academic fraud. On the face of it, and I am obviously not
in the position to verify the evidence which is being published,
there appears to be a strong indication that Professor Bailey
may have falsified the data which he presents. His "research
subjects" are coming forward in print to say that they have
not only been misrepresented in Bailey's book, but that he refused
to make changes to correct that misrepresentation prior to publication.
If the accusations are proven then there is no debate to be had
with his "ideas". One doesn't debate with liars, and
science has no place for them. I would therefore urge you to
look at the evidence being presented on the internet and, if
necessary, investigate the claims being made to the extent you
require to be assured of its authenticity. What you then do is
a question of public morality.
See http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica.html
2. Second there is the question of wider misrepresentation. It
is not the case that Professor Bailey's ideas are new and waiting
to be opposed. In fact they are old ideas that have never held
much sway in academic circles beyond a small self-serving community
of researchers who have a poor reputation with the people they
were supposed to care for. The rest of the research community,
along with the political and legal communities in Europe and
Australasia, have long-since moved on from this point with ideas
and constructs to better describe and serve the people whose
lives are Bailey's "research subjects". This therefore
raises the question of the author's purpose in publishing - especially
in going to such lengths to carefully discredit or avoid mention
of work which doesn't agree with his ideas. This would not perhaps
be so serious in a purely academic publication. Proper peer review
usually weeds out such bias but, even if it doesn't, the audience
is already well-enough informed to be able to take a judgement
on what they read and to respond quickly through the publication's
letters pages. Publishing a book for a wider audience is very
different, however - especially when the ideas which are advanced
are designed to pander to the worst form of pre-existing prejudices
and stereotypes. This is where the matter of scientific responsibility
is most acute, and I would venture that the most compelling indicator
for why this matter is so serious is your own apparent inability
to fully comprehend the wrongness of what he says. I am acutely
aware that as you read this you are picturing the words coming
from -- well, let's face it -- a sexual deviant.
3. Thirdly there is the question of Professor Bailey's own unwillingness
to participate in the debate which you suggest. This seems a
very strange behaviour on the part of any kind of scientist.
Once again there is ample evidence of the author's unwillingness
to hear from anyone whose data didn't fit his theories PRIOR
to publication. Subsequent to publication, he has then retreated
even further into his shell and the statement of his self defence
on the book ends with the enticing suggestion that people should
only write to him if they are disposed to be converted to his
views. Unfortunately sirs, having spent more than a decade meeting
many hundreds of transsexual people and learning how to bear
the responsibility of representing them before the leaders of
my country, I would not be in a position to state that I could
meet such terms - Professor Bailey's unwillingness to come out
and play fairly precludes the kind of debate which Ms Woolsey
recommends.
See Professor Bailey's response to critics at :
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm
To return to Suzanne Woolsey's "defence" of the publication,
therefore, it really is not appropriate to dignify this issue
as a simple matter of polite scientific "difference".
To have a difference there must be a valid proposition on both
sides, and the growing consensus from readers of Bailey's work
suggests his "side" to be based on nothing more than
unfounded opinion bolstered by risible "research" and
data presentation which is increasingly appearing to have been
wilfully falsified. There is no polite way to put this : the
man has been accused of lying in print in ways that endanger
the lives and well-being of transsexual people throughout the
world. If substantiated that evidence makes him a fraud, and
renders the academies and those who continue to associate themselves
with Mr Bailey's work as willing accomplices to that fraud. History
will not view you well.
To assert that such behaviour is merely "controversial"
is to suggest that Pol Pot was just being a bit controversial
too.
If you want a way in which to classify the continued support
for this book then I would offer you the alternative : Incitement
to hatred.
As I have said, the most disturbing aspect of this affair is
the ample evidence of your own apparent inability to comprehend
what's wrong with the ideas being advanced. To me, as an experienced
rights campaigner, the book is not dangerous because it peddles
a set of ideas which people might choose to believe, but because
it provides a false stamp of scientific authority to beliefs
that are already out there in your country. Trans people die
because people believe these things already. What Bailey is doing
with your complicity is to pass the rocks and knives to the mob.
As I intimated at the beginning of this letter therefore, the
debate has moved on significantly in my own eyes.
It is not about Bailey's book itself. That is already well on
its way to being utterly discredited, along with the author and
those who allegedly helped him to edit it. The debate is now
about the role of your own organisation and the way in which
it wields editorial responsibility when it is discovered to have
made a publishing mistake which negatively affects people's lives.
You are not now just being watched and evaluated by trans people
alone. Around the world concerned people are waiting to see how
you react.
As before I would strongly urge you to put from your mind the
notion that these words are coming from the minds of people caricatured
in the book which you uncritically recommend to the world. The
criticism is coming from the very different people whose successes,
intellectual abilities and ethics are simply not represented
at all in that distorted picture.
And do not underestimate the anger and determination which those
people have to see this through. We have all grown up in a world
which for decades was constrained and rendered fearful by the
likes of Professor Bailey exercising unbridled power to describe
us in derogatory terms. The extent of that abuse rivals other
famous historical examples of scientific complicity in the control
of the lives of minorities. In spite of all that, however, transsexual
people have thrived and extracted themselves from the ghetto
to confront their abusers. And we are not going to allow ourselves
to be put back there.
Yours sincerely
Christine Burns
Email : c_burns@btinternet.com Manchester
ENGLAND
|