Universities in the English-speaking world seem to be moving
away from the idea of what a university should be and toward
institutions that are driven by money and customer demand.
The type of problem varies from place to place.
The trend in the UK, for example, is “noplatforming”, where
protests are held to prevent people with controversial opin-
ions from speaking at events held on university campuses because
exceptions need to be made to the principle of freedom of
speech.
In the US it seems to be the infantalising of students in order
to protect them from challenging or potentially offensive mate-
rial being presented in lectures or reading material. In one
outstanding case a professor was disciplined because a student
in a tertiary-level English class objected to the racism inherent
in the word “niggardly” – which means “miserly”.
(Not understanding etymology is not conined to under-
graduate students. I saw someone with a PhD in linguistics
criticise the use of certain terms because they “denigrate”
members of certain racial groups. The word “denigrate” descends
from a Latin expression meaning “to call something black”.)
Neither of these things is conined to just one country, and
another thing that seems to be everywhere is a form of rela-
tivism applied to scientiic matters. Universities must be places
where ideas can be loated and challenged, but there should be
limits.
While I would hope that no real university would do research
into the Flat Earth theory or unicorn genetics, there are certainly
places that harbour climate change deniers and, just as worrying,
those who reject medical science. This last example is a partic-
ular worry for those who respect the Australian university
system.
I have two pieces of paper on my wall from Macquarie
University, where the irst school of chiropractic was estab-
lished outside dedicated chiropractic colleges. (Macquarie tried
to close the school and sell it off recently, but it still seems to
be operating.)
In 2014 there was consternation when La Trobe Univer-
sity accepted a very large grant to investigate supplements from
vitamin manufacturer Swisse (just that company, not any
others).
And in 2015 Sydney University accepted a large sum from
supplement manufacturer Blackmore’s to endow a chair of
“integrated medicine” (the label du jour for “alternative medi-
cine”), but promises have been made that the company will
have no involvement in what is researched beyond writing
cheques. Skeptics remain skeptical.
The latest institution to come under scrutiny is Western
Sydney University (formerly the University of Western Sydney).
WSU has long been the host for all sorts of research and teaching
in areas of woowoo, such as traditional Chinese medicine and
the laky fringes of nursing and midwifery. There is a centre
within the university known as the National Institute of
Complementary Medicine (“complementary” being another
synonym for “alternative”) which has just announced that a
group called the Jacka Foundation of Natural Therapies is to
endow a professorial chair. “Since its inception in 2010 the
Jacka Foundation’s major focus has been the awarding of grants
to support research and development in areas relevant to the
naturopathy profession” (www.jackafoundation.org.au/
scholarships). This does not inspire conidence in the quality
of any subsequent research.
I should point out that I have no objection to private funding
of university research. There is simply not enough money avail-
able through government bodies like the NHMRC to pay for
everything that needs to be done. Also, universities are ideally
situated to do independent research because that’s where the
researchers and lab workers are.
The key word, however, is “independent”. There are very
good reasons to be suspicious of the published indings of in-
house research by pharmaceutical companies simply because
the research process is not transparent and the process is proit-
driven. (Supporters of alternative medicine never tire of
reminding us of the Vioxx scandal.) If the research is carried out
independently with transparent funding and the sponsors have
no control over what is published, then the public should be able
to accept the indings with more conidence.
I accept that there’s much we don’t know about the medical
properties of plants and other organisms, and research into
such areas is perfectly justiied. There are at least three plants
with possible (or known) pharmacological properties growing
in the vacant block next to my house (St John’s Wort, comfrey,
hemlock), but I’m not about to start eating them without
knowing what they really do and why they do it.
The difference between Big Pharma and the alternative
industry is that the pharmaceutical industry does the research
before the marketing, while the “complementary” people go
the other way: research seems to be done to conirm what is
already claimed about things that are already being sold. And
that difference is the real worry.
As for research into homeopathy – well I did mention Flat
Earth geography and unicorn biology.APRIL 2016|| 47Peter Bowditch is a former President of Australian Skeptics Inc. (www.skeptics.com.au).THE NAKED SKEPTIC Peter Bowditch
University Research Is Losing Its Independence
Universities can no longer be relied upon to allow unconventional voices to be heard – unless
there’s sponsorship attached.