A few years ago, editors of the two most prestigious medical journals in the world. recognized that "A significant portion of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may be a lie.".

Another confirmation of the deplorable state of modern science was presented by three American scientists - James Lindsay, Helen Plakrose and Peter Bogossyan, who for the whole year intentionally wrote completely meaningless and even frankly absurd "scientific" articles in various fields of social sciences to prove: ideology in this field long ago prevailed over common sense. 

“Something has gone wrong in academia, especially in certain areas of the humanities. Research papers, based not so much on the search for truth as on paying tribute to social injustices, they took a strong (if not dominant) place there, and their authors are increasingly pushing students, the administration, and other departments to follow their worldview. This worldview is not scientific and not accurate. For many, this problem became increasingly obvious, but convincing evidence was lacking. For this reason, we have devoted a year of work to the scientific disciplines that are integral to this problem.”

Since August 2017, scientists under false names have submitted 20 fabricated articles to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, presented as routine scientific research. The topics of the works varied, but they were all devoted to various manifestations of the fight against “social injustice”: studies of feminism, the culture of masculinity, issues of racial theory, sexual orientation, body positivity, and so on. Each article put forward some radically skeptical theory condemning one or another “social construct” (for example, gender roles).

From a scientific point of view, the articles were downright absurd and did not stand up to criticism. The theories put forward were not supported by the cited figures, sometimes they referred to non-existent sources or works of the same fictitious author, and so on. For example, The Dog Park article claimed that researchers felt the genitals of nearly 10 dogs, asking their owners about their pets' sexual orientation. Another article suggested that white students be forced to listen to lectures while sitting on the floor of the auditorium in chains as punishment for the slavery of their ancestors. In the third, extreme obesity, threatening health, was promoted as a healthy lifestyle choice - "fat bodybuilding". In the fourth, it was proposed to consider masturbation, during which a man imagines a real woman in his fantasies, an act of sexual violence against her. The Dildo article recommended that men anal penetration of themselves with dildos in order to become less transphobic, more feminist and more sensitive to the horrors of rape culture. And one of the articles on the topic of feminism - "Our struggle is my struggle" - was a chapter from Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf", paraphrased in a feminist manner. 

These articles have been successfully reviewed and published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. Due to their “exemplary scientific character,” the authors even received 4 invitations to become reviewers in scientific publications, and one of the most absurd articles, “Dog Park,” took pride of place in the list of best articles in the leading journal of feminist geography, Gender, Place and Culture. The thesis of this opus was as follows:

“Dog parks condone rape and are home to a growing dog rape culture where the systematic oppression of the “oppressed dog” occurs, which measures the human approach to both issues. This provides insight into how to wean men away from the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone.” 

The only question that one of the reviewers raised was whether the researchers actually observed one dog rape per hour., and whether they violated the privacy of dogs by feeling their genitals.

The authors argue that the review system, which should filter out biases, does not meet the requirements in these disciplines. The skeptical checks and balances that should characterize the scientific process are replaced by a stable bias confirmation, leading the study of these issues further and further off the right path. Based on quotations from existing literature, almost any politically fashionable thing, even the craziest one, can be published under the guise of “high scholarship,” since a person who questions any research in the field of identity, privilege and oppression risks being accused of narrow-mindedness and bias.

As a result of our work, we began to call research in the field of culture and identity “pitiful research,” since their common goal is to problematize the cultural aspects in great detail, in an attempt to diagnose imbalances of power and oppression rooted in identity. We believe that the themes of gender, racial identity and sexual orientation certainly deserve research,  but it is important to examine them correctly, without bias. Our culture dictates that only certain kinds of conclusions are acceptable—for example, whiteness or masculinity must be problematic. The fight against manifestations of social injustice is placed above objective truth. Once the most horrific and absurd ideas are made politically fashionable, they gain support at the highest levels of academic “complaint research.” Even though our work is awkward or intentionally flawed, it is important to recognize that it is almost indistinguishable from other work in these disciplines.

What ended the experiment

Of the 20 works written, at least seven were reviewed by leading scientists and accepted for publication. “At least seven” - because seven more articles were at the stage of consideration and review at the moment when the scientists had to stop the experiment and reveal their incognito.

The published “research” was so ridiculous that it attracted the attention of not only serious scientists who pointed out its absurdity, but also journalists who tried to establish the identity of the author. When a Wall Street Journal correspondent called the number left by the authors at one of the editorial offices in early August, James Lindsay himself answered. The professor did not hide and spoke honestly about his experiment, asking only not to make it available to the general public for now, so that he and his dissident friends could terminate the project ahead of schedule and summarize its results.

What's next?

The scandal still shakes the American - and generally Western - scientific community. Dissident scholars have not only ardent critics, but also supporters who actively express their support to them. James Lindsey recorded a video message explaining their motives.

However, the authors of the experiment say that one way or another their reputation in the scientific community is destroyed, and they themselves do not expect anything good. Boghossian is confident that he will be fired from the university or punished in some other way. Pluckrose fears that she may now not be accepted into doctoral studies. And Lindsay says that now she will probably turn into an “academic outcast”, who will be closed to both teaching and publishing serious scientific works. At the same time, they all agree that the project has justified itself.

“The risk that biased research will continue to influence education, media, politics and culture is far worse for us than any consequences we may face ourselves.” - said James Lindsay.

Scientific journals, where fake works were published, promised to remove them from their websites, but they no longer commented on the scandal.

The following is an excerpt from an open letter from scientists “Academic Complaint Studies and Science Corruption».

Why did we do this? Is it because we are racist, sexist, fanatical, misoginistic, homophobic, transphobic, transysterical, anthropocentric, problematic, privileged, cocky, ultra-right, cisheterosexual white men (and one white woman who demonstrated her internalized misogyny and overwhelming need approval), who wanted to justify fanaticism, to maintain their privilege and to side with hatred? - Not. None of the following. Nevertheless, we are accused of this, and we understand why.

The problem we are studying is extremely important not only for the academy, but also for the real world and everyone in it. After spending a year in the field of social sciences and humanities,
focused on issues of social justice,
and having received expert recognition, in addition to witnessing the divisive and destructive effects of their use by activists and the masses on social media, we can now confidently say that they are neither good nor correct. Moreover, these fields of study do not continue the important and noble liberal work of the civil rights movements—they only taint it by using its good name to sell social “snake oil” to a public whose health continues to deteriorate. To uncover social injustice and demonstrate it to skeptics, research in this area must be rigorously scientific. Currently, this is not the case, and this is precisely what allows social justice issues to be ignored. This is a serious issue of grave concern and we need to look at it.

This problem represents a comprehensive, almost or completely holy conviction that many of the general propositions of being and society are socially constructed. These constructs are seen as almost entirely dependent on the distribution of power between groups of people, often dictated by gender, race, and sexual or gender identity. All the provisions generally accepted on the basis of convincing evidence are presented as the product of the intentional and unintentional machinations of influential groups in order to maintain their power over the marginalized. Such a worldview creates a moral obligation to eliminate these structures. 

Conventional “social constructs” that are inherently considered “problematic” and are said to need to be addressed include:

• Awareness of cognitive and psychological differences between men and women, which could explain, at least in part, why they make different choices regarding work, sex and family life;

• the view that the so-called “Western medicine” (although many prominent medical scientists are not from the West) is superior to traditional or spiritual healing methods;

• The belief that obesity is a life-shortening health problem, not an unfairly stigmatized and equally healthy and beautiful body choice.

We took on this project to study, understand and expose the reality of pitiful research, which spoils academic research. Since an open, honest conversation on topics of identity such as gender, race, gender and sexuality (and those studying them) is practically impossible, our goal is to start these conversations again. We hope that this will give people, especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open study and social justice, a clear reason to look at the unanimous madness coming from left academics and activists and say: “No, I do not agree with by this. You do not speak for me. "

Based on materials with the BBC и Areo

The story of

We did the opposite. Several articles were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which were extremely politically incorrect, but strictly scientific, and then they were published as a monograph. These articles refute politically motivated views created by homosexual scholars.

Rhetoric of the LGBT movement* in the light of scientific facts