Evolutionary Biologist Colin Wright Condemns Academic Paper for Alleged Data Fraud and Ideological Capture

Evolutionary biologist and Manhattan Institute Fellow, Colin Wright, has vehemently criticized a recently published academic paper, assigning it "5 out of 5 clowns" for what he describes as "insanity," "ideology and politics," and open advocacy for "committing data fraud." The paper, titled "Trans Data Epistemologies: Transgender Ways of Knowing with Data," was published in the peer-reviewed journal Big Data & Society. Wright's critique, shared on social media, highlights his concern over the erosion of scientific standards within academia.

"It's impossible to overstate the insanity of this paper. There are layers to the madness, too," Wright stated in his tweet. He further elaborated, "The second layer is being so thoroughly captured by ideology and politics that you don't even believe what you're doing is wrong—even on a subconscious level—and then openly advocating for committing data fraud in a peer-reviewed journal."

The paper, authored by Nikko Stevens, an assistant professor at Smith College, and Amelia Lee Doğan, a PhD candidate at the University of Washington, proposes a "trans data epistemology." This approach suggests a new "way of knowing" based on "trans experiences," arguing that "mainstream Western epistemology" is limited by its historical bias towards dominant groups. Wright contends that the authors explicitly prioritize political aims over scientific truth, framing "data activism" as a field where traditional statistical methods are redefined to serve ideological narratives.

Wright's primary concern centers on the paper's alleged endorsement of what he interprets as data manipulation under the guise of "transforming" data and "power analysis." He asserts that these terms are being used to justify practices that amount to data fraud, rather than their standard statistical meanings. The critique also questions the peer-review process of Big Data & Society, noting the paper's acceptance despite these perceived methodological and ethical shortcomings.

This incident is not isolated, as Wright has consistently voiced concerns about what he views as ideological encroachment in scientific research, particularly in areas related to sex and gender. He has previously highlighted other papers that he believes demonstrate a detachment from scientific reality. Wright's strong condemnation underscores a broader debate within academia regarding research integrity, the influence of social and political ideologies on scientific inquiry, and the standards of peer review in contemporary scholarly publishing.