The patience of Eric Berton, rector of Aix-Marseille University (AMU), seems to have reached its limit. After the excesses of some of its collaborators who took conspiratorial or skeptical positions on vaccines, including some former colleagues of Didier Raoult, the AMU declared to L’Express that it had “seized its ethics commission regarding the expression of its agents on social networks”.
We also revealed that Eric Chabrière, an IHUm professor known for the extreme virulence of his comments on social networks against all people who criticize the IHUm, had published several messages in which he violently attacked an independent researcher who had seized several organisms ( including the commission for access to administrative documents) in order to consult the University’s internal investigation.
But that’s not all: other researchers from the IHUm in Marseille, still active today and followed by thousands of internet users, regularly spread disinformation messages on the social network like Professor Philippe Parolawhose position as department head was recently removed. These disciples of Didier Raoult, for example, exaggerate the adverse effects of Covid vaccines or promote hydroxychloroquine against Covid, even though the ineffectiveness of this treatment has long been demonstrated. In addition to the referral to the ethics commission on the expression of its agents on social networks, the AMU also announced the establishment of training in this area.
5,000 euro fine for contempt
In the case of Eric Chabrière, excesses are not limited to social networks. The latter was in fact sentenced on Friday 22 November by the criminal court of Marseille to a fine of 5,000 euros for attempting to intimidate a gendarme, reports the AFP. You have ten days to appeal. The court, which reclassified the facts as “threats” as “contempt” towards a guardian of public order, also condemned Mr. Chabrière to compensate the gendarme 1,500 euros as compensation for moral damage. The events occurred in March, when the chief marshal of the Maritime Gendarmerie of Marseille called Mr Chabrière to remind him that he had been summoned to their premises on 21 March as part of an investigation against him for online harassment.
In the 18-minute recorded exchange, this IHUm professor took advantage of his rank as a reserve captain in the army and his acquaintances: generals, admirals or maritime prefect. “You are nothing to summon me. In the army, I would put people like you in line. You will have the public prosecutor and the whole gendarmerie on your shoulders. I will put your career in the red”, said the gendarme, threatening him with transfer to Brest or Mayotte. The defense of Mr Chabrière, who had explained in particular that if he had shouted at the gendarme it was because his father “is deaf” and therefore “is used to speaking loudly”, did not convince the judges.
Threat of disciplinary proceedings
“An officer […] who insults with absolute ease and dress? We’ll have to clean up,” he wrote, explaining: “They wanted to play. Too bad for them.” In other messages, the IHUm professor believes that Matthieu Audibert’s exit from the social network
Eric Chabrière reacted harshly on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday 22 November, the day after his conviction, accusing another gendarme.
These tweets did not go unnoticed at the University of Marseille. “With regard to the Chabrière (sic) case and taking into account the facts which constitute a serious attack on the image of the university, we reserve the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him”, specified the University of Aix-Marseille , interviewed by L’Esprimiti about these new messages. When questioned, Mr. Chabrière did not respond to L’Express.
The investigation by the Marseille prosecutor’s office is still ongoing
The university, whose image is tarnished by the behaviour of some of its members and by this new report – after those of the ANSM and IGAS - also recalls that president Eric Berton ordered an “inspection of working conditions between 2020 and 2023, through visits to IHUm laboratories as part of the missions of the CHSCT of the AMU and other supervisory authorities” and contacted the French Office for Scientific Integrity as soon as 2022. For its part, the Marseille Public Prosecutor’s Office is also investigating these suspicions of unauthorized clinical trials carried out at the IHUm.
What are the ethical responsibilities of researchers when communicating health information on social media?
Time.news Interview: The Ethics of Science Communication with Professor Julia Martin, Social Media and Public Health Expert
Editor (Eva Torres): Today, we delve into a pressing issue that has emerged from Aix-Marseille University concerning the spread of misinformation by some of its researchers on social media. To discuss this, we have with us Professor Julia Martin, an expert in social media dynamics and public health communication. Welcome, Professor Martin!
Professor Julia Martin: Thank you for having me, Eva.
Eva Torres: The Aix-Marseille University (AMU) recently expressed serious concern over the behavior of some of their researchers regarding the dissemination of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and vaccines. What does this scenario tell us about the responsibilities of academic figures in the digital age?
Professor Julia Martin: It’s a crucial issue. Academics are often seen as trusted sources of knowledge, and thus have a responsibility to communicate accurately, especially on platforms like social media, which can amplify misinformation rapidly. When researchers propagate disinformation—like exaggerating vaccine side effects or promoting ineffective treatments—it’s not just a breach of personal ethics; it undermines public trust in science as a whole.
Eva Torres: Exactly! We’ve seen instances where individuals, such as Professor Eric Chabrière, have faced legal repercussions for their actions on social media. Do you think legal consequences are an effective way to curb such behavior among academics?
Professor Julia Martin: Legal consequences can act as a deterrent, yes, but they should not be the only solution. It’s essential for institutions to take proactive measures—like training on responsible communication and ethical standards for social media use. These measures can foster a culture of accountability that discourages harmful rhetoric.
Eva Torres: AMU’s rector Eric Berton mentioned they are establishing training programs on ethical expression on social media. How impactful do you think such initiatives could be in changing the current landscape?
Professor Julia Martin: Training can definitely have a positive impact. By educating researchers about the potential consequences of misinformation, and by equipping them with skills for effective communication, universities can help ensure that their voices contribute to informed public discourse rather than confusion. It can also empower them to engage constructively with criticism and foster a healthy public dialog.
Eva Torres: On that note, the case of Eric Chabrière raises questions about professional conduct. His interactions demonstrate a troubling trend where some scholars may feel entitled to lash out at critics. How can we foster a culture of constructive discourse in such environments?
Professor Julia Martin: We need to promote an academic culture that values respectful debate and the evidence-based exchange of ideas. Institutions should emphasize conflict resolution strategies and encourage researchers to approach disagreements constructively. This not only improves the academic environment but also sets a powerful example for their audiences.
Eva Torres: Given the rapid evolution of information sharing, particularly on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), what strategies do you propose for researchers to effectively communicate their findings without falling into the trap of misinformation?
Professor Julia Martin: Researchers should focus on transparency and clarity. They can share summaries of their findings in layman’s terms, engage with their audience by encouraging questions, and provide references to reputable sources. Additionally, they should recognise when they don’t have expertise in an area and refer to colleagues or existing literature before making claims. Proper digital literacy training can assist researchers in navigating these platforms thoughtfully.
Eva Torres: Lastly, with schools like AMU taking steps to rein in the spread of misinformation, do you foresee a broader trend among academic institutions in addressing social media ethics?
Professor Julia Martin: Yes, I believe we’re at a tipping point where more institutions realize the necessity of addressing the intersection of academia and social media. As we’ve seen with AMU, the fallout from misinformation can be damaging—not just for the individuals involved but for the credibility of academic institutions. I anticipate we will see more universities implementing ethical guidelines for social media use and taking a more active role in shaping how their community interacts online.
Eva Torres: Thank you, Professor Martin, for sharing your insights on this critical issue. It’s clear that while social media can be a double-edged sword, strengthening our ethical frameworks can foster a healthier conversation surrounding science.
Professor Julia Martin: Thank you, Eva. It’s been a pleasure discussing these vital topics with you.
Eva Torres: And that’s a wrap on today’s interview! Thank you for tuning in to Time.news. We’ll continue to follow this evolving situation closely.