What sanctions for Mucchielli antivax? “His peers must speak out publicly”

The Covid crisis was an opportunity to put science and health back in the spotlight. Most often for the best. Unfortunately, some researchers have also distinguished themselves by their slippages, when they have not sunk into conspiratorial fantasies. The case of Laurent Mucchielli, sociologist at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), is emblematic. On his blog hosted by Mediapart and in interviews given to the conspiratorial blog France Soir, Sud Radio, etc., he disseminated and repeated false information, such as an article minimizing the seriousness of the pandemic, another criticizing the effectiveness of the mask or defending hydroxychloroquine, a treatment promoted by Professor Didier Raoult whose ineffectiveness has been proven, or claiming that vaccination against Covid-19 would potentially be “responsible for nearly 1,000 deaths”, when he did not signed forums against “the government of fear” or against “health strategy”.

However, he only received a simple call to order from the CNRS, in a press release that was certainly severe, but published more than a year after his first slippages and without naming him directly. To date, he is still affiliated with the CNRS, while many researchers are asking for heavier sanctions. This thorny problem was discussed at length during the symposium of the French Office for Scientific Integrity, which took place on Thursday 9 June at the Collège de France, during which most specialists explained that an additional sanction, such as a dismissal, would be counter-productive. An opinion partly shared by Michel Dubois, sociologist of science and CNRS research director – also present at the conference -, who nevertheless believes that solutions are possible.

When a researcher is accused of spreading potentially dangerous false information and harm the image of his profession, even of scienceshouldn’t his institution punish him severely?

Limited offer. 2 months for 1€ without commitment

Michael Dubois When a fragile, dubious or false idea circulates in the public space and its author is a researcher who invokes the exercise of academic freedom, it is up to his professional group to which he belongs to define the conduct to be adopted. This group has two major options to choose from.

The first: let it be. It is based on the idea that there is a form of self-regulation of the market of ideas, the researcher who publicly manifests his incompetence can ultimately only discredit himself and mechanically contribute to “devaluing” his own words. This option has the advantage of reducing as much as possible the effect of amplification and publicity linked to a controversy which would in principle be public. But it appears to me to be naive in its liberal approach – in the Anglo-Saxon sense – to the market of ideas, as if good or solid ideas imposed themselves, whereas experience has suggested the opposite to us since a long time, and its double inconsistency. Inconsistency with regard to the collective effects of disinformation, for example deaths due to the dissemination of fake news on vaccination [NDLR : une récente étude montre d’ailleurs que près de 9500 morts sont attribuables à la mauvaise prescription d’hydroxychloroquine dans huit pays au cours de la première vague de Covid-19] and inconsistency with regard to the discredit that can affect not only the researcher, but more broadly the community to which the researcher belongs.

Second option, public intervention, either to challenge the exercise of academic freedom and substitute it with the exercise of freedom of expression, or to recognize the exercise of academic freedom but transpose into the public space a form of regulation which is traditionally exercised in the confined space of the professional group.

In the first case, it is accepted that the researcher like any other citizen has the right to have fragile, dubious or false opinions and to expose them publicly. But it is up to the institution to which it belongs to publicly remind him of his moral obligation not to maintain confusion between freedom of expression and academic freedom and that he must speak in his own name as a more or less “committed” and not as a “disinterested” researcher.

Isn’t this precisely where the shoe pinches, since researchers use their “CNRS stamp” or Inserm, Inrae, etc., as a pledge of credibility with their audience?

The effectiveness of this strategy depends on two conditions: on the one hand the capacity of all the stakeholders to agree on the existence of a clear demarcation between freedom of expression and academic freedom, on the other hand the ability of these same stakeholders to position themselves in the same way on either side of this border. In the case of Laurent Mucchielli, these two conditions are not met, which generates a controversy which is added to the initial controversy. The press release of August 24, 2021 in which the CNRS recalls the opinion of its ethics committee – “the researcher who intervenes in the public space must specify in what capacity” – clashes head-on with Laurent Mucchielli’s desire to publicly state the “work” accomplished as well as his alleged ability to have a “justified” opinion in a field [NDLR : l’épidémiologie] yet far from its initial area of expertise [NDLR : la sociologie].

When it is not possible to substitute the exercise of freedom of expression for that of academic freedom, the question arises of the mode of regulation likely to be exercised over the public speech of a researcher. This is undoubtedly where the question of peer review arises.

Who would be legitimate to remind him publicly that he is wrong and that he must respect the rules of his profession?

On the occasion of a column published in The world on August 19, 2021, a collective of sociologists invited the CNRS and the French Sociology Association (AFS) to take a public position: “This fault should lead to a firmer reaction on the part of the CNRS, as well as, on the part of from the AFS, a clear clarification, both of which are all the more necessary in this period of a pandemic where such nonsense can have dramatic consequences.

This group is, in my opinion, making a double error. On the one hand, the AFS is not the equivalent of the Order of Physicians for sociologists and the association has no authority or legitimacy to regulate the public speech of a sociologist. On the other hand, the CNRS is a research establishment which employs the researcher. But the evaluation work is carried out by the National Committee for Scientific Research, that is to say a separate evaluation body made up of peer researchers and teacher-researchers not necessarily employed by the CNRS.

L’application L’Express

To track analysis and decryption wherever you are

Download the app

If there must be intervention for these exceptional cases, it is therefore indeed to the competent section of the national committee (section 36 sociology and law), that is to say to the peers of Laurent Mucchielli, that it is up to expressing oneself publicly to recall the rules in force in the professional environment of sociology and more generally the ethics of the research professions. Remain perhaps, but it is another question, to wonder about the extreme discretion of these peers.

Interview by Victor Garcia