Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

Is a Conference to Fix Science Actually Undermining It?

Participants are pulling out, decrying ‘manels,’ ideological agendas, and ‘odd cranks’

By Tom Bartlett February 4, 2020
Is a Conference to Fix Science  Actually Undermining It? 1
André da Loba for The Chronicle

The description of a conference put on by the National Association of Scholars sounds perfectly above board. “Fixing Science: Practical Solutions for the Irreproducibility Crisis” was supposed to examine how the “improper use of statistics” has cast doubt on peer-reviewed research. Participants would “craft and propose initiatives” aimed at pushing back against a “culture biased toward producing positive results.”

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

The description of a conference put on by the National Association of Scholars sounds perfectly above board. “Fixing Science: Practical Solutions for the Irreproducibility Crisis” was supposed to examine how the “improper use of statistics” has cast doubt on peer-reviewed research. Participants would “craft and propose initiatives” aimed at pushing back against a “culture biased toward producing positive results.”

And yet some of those who have been most active in the movement to make science more rigorous and transparent chose to stay away. Two speakers also quietly dropped out. Among the concerns was that the lineup of speakers was almost entirely male. Nearly every session was what’s become known as a “manel,” leading one Twitter wag to dub the event a “manference.”

Another, less-obvious worry was that the NAS’s interest in reproducibility may have been less about making science better and more about advancing an ideological agenda. Scan the program and you’ll see sessions led by self-described climate-change skeptics, a presentation by an epidemiologist known for playing down the health effects of smoking, and the author of a widely discredited study purporting to show that same-sex couples are lousy parents.

That was enough to make Leonid Teytelman turn down his invitation. He looked at the program and thought, “This is a climate-change-denial conference,” says Teytelman, a computational biologist. “If you subtract the odd cranks, there aren’t that many scholars.” By Teytelman’s count, seven of the 21 speakers could be considered climate-change skeptics.

If I opted out of every psychology conference that was riddled with political agendas I would almost never attend conferences.

Teytelman, the chief executive officer of protocols.io, a research-sharing platform, did more than decline. He also emailed several speakers to warn them that, in his view, the NAS was neither to be taken seriously nor to be trusted. “Their work is dangerous, and I urge you to reconsider taking part in their event,” he wrote. One of those speakers, Brian Earp, a researcher at the University of Oxford, replied in an email to Teytelman that while he cares “more about the quality of people’s ideas than their political leanings,” he would feel obliged to pull out if “there is something nefarious here.” Earp ended up withdrawing.

Ronald Wasserstein, slated to deliver the conference’s keynote address, says he still planned to attend, though what he’s learned has given him pause. For starters, it makes him “slightly nuts” that the conference appears to provide a forum for climate-change denialism. “There are certainly things that I didn’t know that would have made it harder for me to say yes if I had known,” says Wasserstein, executive director of the American Statistical Association.

That’s not the intention of the conference, according to Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars. Instead, as he wrote in a column for The Wall Street Journal, the NAS has become the latest victim of a “cancel culture” in which anyone “with an attitude of moral superiority and a Twitter account can try to shut down an event where opinions he dislikes are likely to be spoken.”

As for the accusation that the conference is a climate-change-denialism gathering in disguise, Wood says that the association has no official position on the subject. “There are some climate skeptics in the roster of speakers,” he says. “There are also some who are supporters of the climate consensus, so called.” Wood has described himself as a climate-change “agnostic.”

The NAS has been accused of slipping climate-change skepticism into the conversation before. A 2018 report on reproducibility published by the NAS refers to “ideologically driven fields such as climate science.” The report also calls for a review of climate-change-related regulations put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency — an oddly specific recommendation for a report on reproducibility. (Indeed, questions were raised at the time about the NAS’s motives.)

ADVERTISEMENT

That report was also distributed and promoted by the Heartland Institute, which has advocated aggressively for skepticism about climate change. In 2017, Heartland mailed thousands of copies of its book Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming to public-school teachers around the country. The organization’s strategy for sowing doubt about climate change is similar to its previous strategy of sowing doubt about the link between lung cancer and smoking.

A number of speakers at the NAS’s conference have Heartland connections, and Wood himself is listed in the “Who We Are” section of Heartland’s website, though he says he has no link to the organization other than attending a few of its conferences. “The NAS receives no financial support or attention from the corporate world or anyone who has a stake in seeing the recision of regulations that impose economic difficulties,” he says. “Our complaints are intellectual.”

As for the remarkable paucity of women speaking at the conference, Wood says the NAS did invite “several women” to speak at the event, but they declined.

Not everyone changed their plans, though. “I would not attend if I had evidence that I was being ‘played’ for political aims,” says Daniele Fanelli, a fellow in quantitative methodology at the London School of Economics and Political Science who studies research bias and misconduct. “But I have no such evidence.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Lee Jussim also planned to be there. Jussim, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, doesn’t defend the NAS against charges that it has a hidden political agenda, and he calls putting on an almost all-male conference “bad.” But he argues in an essay for Medium that just because the conference has biases and faults doesn’t mean it should be avoided: “If I opted out of every psychology conference that was riddled with political agendas, or run by an organization with political agendas … I would almost never attend conferences.”

In a post titled “Should I Stay or Should I Go?,” Dorothy Bishop, a professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford, argues that while it’s important to engage with those who have varying perspectives, this particular conference is “not about regular scientific debate.” Instead, she writes, it’s about “weaponising the reproducibility debate to bolster the message that everything in science is uncertain — which is very convenient for those who wish to promote fringe ideas.”

It’s worth noting that Bishop, who often writes about research integrity and is among the most prominent voices advocating for reform in science, was not invited to the conference.

A version of this article appeared in the February 14, 2020, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Teaching & Learning Scholarship & Research
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Tom Bartlett
Tom Bartlett is a senior writer who covers science and ideas. Follow him on Twitter @tebartl.

More News

Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress
Allison Pingree, a Cambridge, Mass. resident, joined hundreds at an April 12 rally urging Harvard to resist President Trump's influence on the institution.
International
Trump Administration Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
Photo-based illustration of an open book with binary code instead of narrative paragraphs
Culture Shift
The Reading Struggle Meets AI

From The Review

Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson
Protestors gather outside the Pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Are Colleges Rife With Antisemitism? If So, What Should Be Done?
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin