'The Journal of Controversial Ideas' will launch in 2019. Is it dangerous?
Should all ideas see daylight?
- A trio of respected philosophers have decided to launch a peer reviewed journal that would allow for anonymous submissions.
- If successful, the journal could allow for important ideas that might lead to threats or harm to the author to join the debate and promote discussion.
- Critics ask if this is needed, and warn of giving dangerous people a safe space to publish horrific ideas.
Three very famous philosophers are teaming up to create an academic journal dedicated to ideas too controversial to put a name on. As you might expect, the concept itself has already gathered controversy.
The names behind a journal without names
Philosophers Peter Singer, Jeff McMahan, and Francesca Minerva have announced their intention to create the straightforwardly named The Journal of Controversial Ideas, which will begin printing next year. The organizers are no strangers to controversial ideas themselves; Dr. Minerva received death threats in response to an essay she wrote about abortion and Peter Singer's ideas on the moral permissibility of euthanizing severely handicapped infants still leads to semi-regular protests against his speaking arrangements and academic postings.
How will it work?
The idea is for this annual journal to be just like any other interdisciplinary peer-reviewed academic journal, with the same standards and rigorous review process. The only real point of interest is that anonymous submissions will be allowed in cases where academics fear that attaching their name to a submission could lead to personal or professional harm.
At the moment, the journal's potential review board is limited, and Dr. Minerva explained to Vox that the journal wouldn't be able to properly review an article on a subject like astrophysics at this time. However, this could be seen as a mere start-up problem. If it takes off, there is little doubt that experts in other fields could be brought in.
Why do they think this is needed?
In an essay written jointly by the three founders published in The Guardian, they explain exactly why set out to do this:
"Our aim in establishing the journal is only to enable academics — particularly younger, untenured, or otherwise vulnerable academics — to have the option of publishing under a pseudonym when they might otherwise be deterred from publishing by fear of death threats (which two of us have received in response to our writings), threats to their families, or threats to their careers. Pseudonymity is optional, not required. Our intention is to publish only articles that give carefully developed reasons, arguments and evidence in support of conclusions that some may find offensive or pernicious. We will not publish work that is polemical, intentionally inflammatory or ad hominem."
Is this necessary?
Perhaps naturally, many people object to the idea that this journal is needed.
Annabelle Timsit of Quartz explained that our perception of censorship in academia might be overblown, and pointed to a project by Sanford J. Ungar of Georgetown University that shows that incidents of students, facility, or department heads censoring speech is actually quite rare and tend to be limited to cases where the speakers are people who have given Nazi salutes and cheers in public or advocate for the death of people they don't like. Another study shows the political leanings of professors doesn't lead to censorship or have much effect on how students learn anyway. If these findings are accurate, the need for this journal would be in doubt.
Others have objected to the idea that ideas which would prompt backlash are entitled to this level of promotion and the authors to the protection of anonymity.Professor Laleh Khalili scorned the idea on Twitter as "a journal in which to anonymously ponder racist, sexist, transphobic, pro-colonialist, pro-exploitation ideas without fear of backlash." The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik agreed and said that the journal would be "a safe space, one where authors do not have to deal with feedback or criticism from those at the sharp end of their 'controversial" ideas.'
Of course, the fact that two of the people behind the journal have had death threats sent to them suggests that maybe a little protection for writers peddling bold ideas might be useful.
Is it a good idea?
Even if the journal is addressing an important issue, there are debates over if such a journal is the right way to deal with the problems it seeks to solve. Professors Bradley Campbell and Clay Routledge write in an article published in Quillette that they agree that people with controversial ideas are currently at risk of personal and professional harm, but do not support the tactic of producing this journal. They explain that:
"Even while we recognize these and other threats to scholars who do work viewed as controversial, we believe the creation of The Journal of Controversial Ideas is ultimately a capitulation to the academic culture that motivated scholars to feel the need to establish such a journal."
They instead suggest that we "Let every journal be a place where controversy is welcome and there will be no reason for this one."Others have been more supportive of the idea, pointing out cases where people have been fired or treated poorly as a result of taking a controversial stance. The journal already has a board with 40 members with a variety of intellectual and ideological backgrounds, suggesting a fair amount of support. One member of the board is the conservative intellectual Robert P. George, who has disagreed with Peter Singer for years.
What do the journal's founders say?
They have responded to several critiques of their idea already.
Dr. Minerva reminds us that intellectuals have been anonymously publishing important work that could get them into trouble for centuries. Some more famous examples include Søren Kierkegaard, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Malthus. We still manage to have discussions about their ideas anyway, and the authors didn't get lynched; a win-win for all involved.
Singer and company fully explain why they feel the need for the journal in an essay published in The Guardian as a response to Ms. Malik's article. They restate that their goal is the promotion of debate and the prevention of self-censorship by academics that fear what would happen if they wrote something that offended somebody.
We live in a world were concerns over offending people are increasingly prevalent, and the risks of being personally and professionally ruined as a result of making a controversial statement are great. While the question of if this mandates the creation of a journal for anonymously published controversial essays remains debatable, but a debate is exactly what the philosophers behind it want.
Where should the line of censorship be drawn?
- Philosophers will launch interdisciplinary journal that allows authors ... ›
- Here Comes 'The Journal of Controversial Ideas.' Cue the Outcry ... ›
- Pseudonyms to protect authors of controversial articles - BBC News ›
What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.
- Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
- Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
- Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
Great ideas in philosophy often come in dense packages. Then there is where the work of Marcus Aurelius.
- Meditations is a collection of the philosophical ideas of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
- Written as a series of notes to himself, the book is much more readable than the dry philosophy most people are used to.
- The advice he gave to himself 2,000 years ago is increasingly applicable in our hectic, stressed-out lives.
Can dirt help us fight off stress? Groundbreaking new research shows how.
- New research identifies a bacterium that helps block anxiety.
- Scientists say this can lead to drugs for first responders and soldiers, preventing PTSD and other mental issues.
- The finding builds on the hygiene hypothesis, first proposed in 1989.
Are modern societies trying too hard to be clean, at the detriment to public health? Scientists discovered that a microorganism living in dirt can actually be good for us, potentially helping the body to fight off stress. Harnessing its powers can lead to a "stress vaccine".
Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder found that the fatty 10(Z)-hexadecenoic acid from the soil-residing bacterium Mycobacterium vaccae aids immune cells in blocking pathways that increase inflammation and the ability to combat stress.
The study's senior author and Integrative Physiology Professor Christopher Lowry described this fat as "one of the main ingredients" in the "special sauce" that causes the beneficial effects of the bacterium.
The finding goes hand in hand with the "hygiene hypothesis," initially proposed in 1989 by the British scientist David Strachan. He maintained that our generally sterile modern world prevents children from being exposed to certain microorganisms, resulting in compromised immune systems and greater incidences of asthma and allergies.
Contemporary research fine-tuned the hypothesis, finding that not interacting with so-called "old friends" or helpful microbes in the soil and the environment, rather than the ones that cause illnesses, is what's detrimental. In particular, our mental health could be at stake.
"The idea is that as humans have moved away from farms and an agricultural or hunter-gatherer existence into cities, we have lost contact with organisms that served to regulate our immune system and suppress inappropriate inflammation," explained Lowry. "That has put us at higher risk for inflammatory disease and stress-related psychiatric disorders."
University of Colorado Boulder
This is not the first study on the subject from Lowry, who published previous work showing the connection between being exposed to healthy bacteria and mental health. He found that being raised with animals and dust in a rural environment helps children develop more stress-proof immune systems. Such kids were also likely to be less at risk for mental illnesses than people living in the city without pets.
Lowry's other work also pointed out that the soil-based bacterium Mycobacterium vaccae acts like an antidepressant when injected into rodents. It alters their behavior and has lasting anti-inflammatory effects on the brain, according to the press release from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prolonged inflammation can lead to such stress-related disorders as PTSD.
The new study from Lowry and his team identified why that worked by pinpointing the specific fatty acid responsible. They showed that when the 10(Z)-hexadecenoic acid gets into cells, it works like a lock, attaching itself to the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR). This allows it to block a number of key pathways responsible for inflammation. Pre-treating the cells with the acid (or lipid) made them withstand inflammation better.
Lowry thinks this understanding can lead to creating a "stress vaccine" that can be given to people in high-stress jobs, like first responders or soldiers. The vaccine can prevent the psychological effects of stress.
What's more, this friendly bacterium is not the only potentially helpful organism we can find in soil.
"This is just one strain of one species of one type of bacterium that is found in the soil but there are millions of other strains in soils," said Lowry. "We are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of identifying the mechanisms through which they have evolved to keep us healthy. It should inspire awe in all of us."
Check out the study published in the journal Psychopharmacology.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.