The Student Room Group

The scandal of the persecution of Noah Carl at Cambridge

I encourage all of you to take a look at the treatment of a young Research Fellow at Cambridge who has had his entire career threatened by what can only be described as an academic lynch mob.

His persecution is an utter disgrace which shames a world renowned university and the entire British university sector.

Are you prepared to walk on by?

https://quillette.com/2018/12/07/academics-mobbing-of-a-young-scholar-must-be-denounced/
This guy has a history of writing pseudoscientific papers with poor methodology and publishing them to a journal known for pseudoscientific and also 'peer-reviewing' his own work.

Doesn't surprise me that people are kicking up a fuss about this.
Reply 2
Original post by SHallowvale
This guy has a history of writing pseudoscientific papers with poor methodology and publishing them to a journal known for pseudoscientific and also 'peer-reviewing' his own work.

Doesn't surprise me that people are kicking up a fuss about this.

And it doesn't surprise me that you are on the wrong side of this.

Whenever it comes to a choice between the persecuted and the persecutors people like you are on the side of the baying mob.
Original post by generallee
And it doesn't surprise me that you are on the wrong side of this.

Whenever it comes to a choice between the persecuted and the persecutors people like you are on the side of the baying mob.



All I have pointed out is that this person has a proven dodgy history publishing psuedoscience to a journal which doesn't practice peer-review.

If the work which got him the fellowship (which could be different to the work mentioned above) is scientifically sound and has been properly reviewed (which appears that it could be the case) then good for him. If not and if said work is full of pseudoscience and crap methodology then I don't care if he loses his fellowship.
Typical left-wing mob nonsense. Whilst disappointing, it is hardly unexpected from universities and academia these days.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Typical left-wing mob nonsense. Whilst disappointing, it is hardly unexpected from universities and academia these days.

People have every reason to call this person and their work into question. You don't have to be left-wing to realise this either; their 'academic' history is definitely sketchy.

To totally denounce them however is nonsense.
Seeing that they didn't cite any specific examples, likely means they couldnt' find any and simply disagreed with the content.

Shame that they're trying to slander such a young researcher at the start of their career.

If you disagree with someone, release your own paper countering their claims with valid points and data. Lynch mobbing in universities should be discouraged at all levels.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by SHallowvale
People have every reason to call this person and their work into question. You don't have to be left-wing to realise this either; their 'academic' history is definitely sketchy.

To totally denounce them however is nonsense.

It is actually incredibly easy to criticise other people's papers and work. It happens all the time in academia.
It is pretty disturbing that Cambridge University - one of the Big 5 in the UK, maybe even the top 2 - is hiring someone who certainly is skirting around the edge of justifying psuedoscientific racism.

Just because it is a "mob" attacking him doesn't mean that it is unwarrented. It isn't a witch hunt if the witch exists.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
It isn't a witch hunt if the witch exists.


How else would you find a witch? A hunt for a witch is a witch hunt regardless of the existence of a witch.
Reply 10
He's being rightly criticised because he publishes dodgy research. If Andrew Wakefield had been given a research fellowship at Cambridge, I'd expect the same criticisms.
Original post by katf
He's being rightly criticised because he publishes dodgy research. If Andrew Wakefield had been given a research fellowship at Cambridge, I'd expect the same criticisms.

I imagine the main reason people are calling it "dodgy" is because they don't like the subject matter. It's actually very easy to criticise the methodologies/statistics of scientific papers, it happens in journal clubs all the time.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
I imagine the main reason people are calling it "dodgy" is because they don't like the subject matter. It's actually very easy to criticise the methodologies/statistics of scientific papers, it happens in journal clubs all the time.

None of that stops it from being dodgy.

In addition they published work which was reviewed by basically his own friends and not someone independent. That's bad practice for any journal.
Original post by SHallowvale
None of that stops it from being dodgy.

In addition they published work which was reviewed by basically his own friends and not someone independent. That's bad practice for any journal.

But certainly not unheard of. I'm aware of multiple journals that allow authors to suggest reviewers. Of course they are not "prestigious journals", but they are still peer-reviewed Pubmed-indexed journals.
Original post by SHallowvale
None of that stops it from being dodgy.

In addition they published work which was reviewed by basically his own friends and not someone independent. That's bad practice for any journal.

Nothing really quoted by the criticisors is inherently dodgey.

Many well know and accepted published work is often reviewed by collegues, associates and acquaintances. The main reason you generally don't get a whole lot of outrage is the fact that many scientists will walk the 'party line'.

Simply being controversial or going against the grain does not automatically make it 'dodgey'. These days the scientific community often throws round the word psuedoscientific for anything they don't agree with.

Imagine if someone actually came out with rock sold evidence for Noah Carls claims? It would still be called psuedoscientific regardless.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by DanB1991
Nothing really quoted by the criticisors is inherently dodgey.

Many well know and accepted published work is often reviewed by collegues, associates and acquaintances. The main reason you generally don't get a whoel lot of outrage is the fact that many scientists will walk the 'party line'.

Simply being controversial or going against the grain does not automatically make it 'dodgey'. These days the scientific community often throws round the word psuedoscientific for anything they don't agree with.

Imagine if someone actually came out with rock sold evidence for Noah Carls claims? It would still be called psuedoscientific regardless.

How often is it for work to be reviewed by collegues/acquaintances?

My understanding of academia is that your work should be independently reviewed by someone who isn't known to you but also works in a similar field.
Original post by SHallowvale
How often is it for work to be reviewed by collegues/acquaintances?

My understanding of academia is that your work should be independently reviewed by someone who isn't known to you but also works in a similar field.

It happens all the time. I would say in academia a large amount of people who actually read specific journals will often be in the same academic/political echo chamber.
No surprise here. Look what they did to James Watson after all, and he discovered DNA.

Quick Reply