In 2015 a long standing Australian anti-vaccination activist and lobbyist, Judith Wilyman, was awarded a PhD by the University of Wollongong. Titled A Critical Analysis of The Australian Government’s Rationale for its Vaccination Policy, the work attracted exceptional criticism. I’d like to consider the veracity of certain arguments raised in defence of Wilyman’s work, noting they have arisen from one source and are themselves extensive. [Jump to Conspiracy Theory Attribution].
Antithesis
From across the globe and from multiple sources, criticism flowed readily for Wilyman’s publication. For this author, there was one thing other than the content that also rankled. The fact that it was a collection of biased references arranged to attack the integrity of one of Australia’s most effective public health initiatives. Quite striking, for a work that emerged from an academic institution, is the absence of any original research conducted by the author. As the author uses the term “thesis” we had best examine this. The Oxford dictionary offers two distinctions, with the following describing “a doctoral thesis”:
a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a university degree
This may of course seem petty unless you’ve taken time to examine this work. Nonetheless for the sake of clarity I too shall yield and refer to this diversion from genuine analysis of Australian vaccination policy, as a thesis. It is clear however, that there is no research, methodology, study, data collection or justified hypothesis. There is only a literature review and a biased one at that. Australian emergency physician Kristin Boyle describes the work as, “the inevitable product of someone with an ideology based agenda”. Genuine literature reviews that seek to examine varying or different arguments, are valuable items of research. They collate and examine related works, and in judging the strengths or weaknesses of each, offer a contention, or indeed a novel conclusion. This didn’t happen in the Wilyman literature review. Still, Judith Wilyman falsely poses herself as “an expert witness” in a family court case, a “specialist in government vaccination policies” (federal politics), and has significantly elevated her importance to the fields of vaccinology and public health.
The reality is Wilyman barely scraped in. One of her two examiners suggested the thesis was unworthy of PhD status and better suited to a Master’s degree. They observed concerns about a lack of engagement with existing literature and “the lack of an appropriate theoretical framework”. Wilyman they argued, had conducted no original research nor contributed to the knowledge of the subject. This conflict was resolved by the rare event of appointing a third examiner. Australian Skeptics Inc. report (archived):
That third examiner, also unnamed, judged that, while the thesis as assessed showed Wilyman conducted original research, it did not make a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject, had no indication of a broad understanding of the discipline within which the work was conducted, and that it was not suitable for publication.
They recommended that the thesis be resubmitted, and gave “extensive and detailed comments on areas that need to be improved”, sharing the same concerns as the earlier critical examiner.
This revised version was consulted by only one examiner; the third individual who had requested the significant changes. The original “earlier critical examiner” was not asked for an opinion. The examiner who had accepted the original, doubly-rejected thesis, was considered a certainty for the improved version. Thus, a year later than she planned, Wilyman had her PhD.
In the excellent article, PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences (Vaccine 37; p. 1542), Wiley et al postulate as to how this oversight possibly came to be:
The quality of the writing and presentation of the thesis is such that many of its arguments could seem plausible to an examiner without specific content knowledge, despite sound academic credentials. Our combined expertise (vaccinology, epidemiology, the history and practise of immunisation policy development globally and in Australia, social science) and as PhD examiners, both gives us detailed knowledge of the sources cited by the thesis, and allows us to identify key deficiencies […] A critical analysis should consider the merits and faults of an issue and be conducted in a way that is not designed to find only evidence for the writer’s pre-determined conclusions. […] This thesis does not include methods for assessing the literature, does not discuss aspects of identified studies which may contradict one another, or attempt to establish the quality of relevant studies. Rather, the references used are highly selective, only citing a small number of the available epidemiological studies and clinical trial reports, all of which are interpreted to support conclusions which appear pre-determined.
The Supervisor
A News GP summary of the above paper in Vaccine is available here. Let’s examine the first sentence in the above quote. Firstly, does it help us understand how such a deliberate failure to include material supporting Australia’s vaccination policy was not addressed by Wilyman’s supervisor? Secondly, is it likely such a biased collection of arguments was missed because examiners, and particularly the supervisor, lacked “specific content knowledge”? Sure, Wilyman studied within the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. Her supervisor, Professor Brian Martin completed his PhD in Theoretical Physics and later became a Professor of Social Sciences, at the University of Wollongong. But not being qualified in vaccinology, related fields or policy development does not render senior academics incapable of accessing evidence or seeking consultation. More so, Wilyman’s published acknowledgement of her supervisor is unambiguous;
I would also like to thank Professor Brian Martin, my primary supervisor at the University of Wollongong, for his unwavering support and encouragement. His weekly phone calls kept me focused and there were many robust discussions that helped me to overcome the significant opposition to this project. I thank him for his patience and dedication to my research.
It’s important to acknowledge that the role of Professor Brian Martin (left) in Wilyman’s thesis was not just one of “unwavering support” for her many unsupported claims, but one in which his own later accounts afford academic freedom more importance than academic integrity. I shall endeavour to be as fair as possible in referencing claims Brian Martin has made in defence of the Wilyman thesis. I will seriously consider the notion of Conspiracy Theory Attribution (CTA) and the suggested failure of critics to analyse the thesis and citations presented.
Continue reading
Losing In The Lucky Country 