Dr. J.D. Haltigan Critiques Degradation of Scientific Institutions, Citing "Anti-Human Lunacy" in Published Research

London, UK – Dr. J.D. Haltigan, a PhD and academic associated with the Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the University of Buckingham, recently issued a scathing critique via social media regarding the state of scientific institutions. In a direct statement, Haltigan condemned certain published content as "anti-human lunacy," asserting that it "helps no one" and is "fiction. Derangement. Mental illness."

"Publishing this lunacy is anti-human essentially. It helps no one. It is fiction. Derangement. Mental illness. Do not sugarcoat this with soft touch like this. Our scientific institutions have been totally degraded & hollowed out. Make no mistake," stated J.D. Haltigan, PhD, in his tweet.

Dr. Haltigan's remarks underscore a broader concern he has articulated regarding the integrity of social sciences. His work, including a recent manuscript titled "Retrospect & Prospect: A Post-Progressive Developmental Psychopathology," highlights what he perceives as ideological corruption within academic fields. He argues that radical progressive social justice activism has "polluted and corrupted" disciplines like developmental psychopathology, diverting them from the pursuit of scientific truth.

The Centre for Heterodox Social Science, with which Haltigan is affiliated, aims to challenge dominant ideologies and research omitted topics within social sciences, advocating for a rebalancing of knowledge. This aligns with Haltigan's call for a return to a classic biopsychosocial model in research and practice, emphasizing biologically and genetically informed designs. He also criticizes the "ideology of destigmatization" in mental health, suggesting it can erode public trust and undermine the field's potential.

Haltigan's public statements reflect a growing discourse among some academics who express apprehension about the politicization of research and the potential for ideological agendas to compromise scientific rigor. These concerns often center on issues such as academic freedom, the scope of research questions, and the interpretation and dissemination of findings.