Springer Nature will retract an article that reported results of a survey of parents who thought their children’s gender dysphoria resulted from social contagion. The move is “due to concerns about lack of informed consent,” according to tweets by one of the paper’s authors.
The article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was published in March in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It has not been cited in the scientific literature, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, but Altmetric, which tracks the online attention papers receive, ranks the article in the top 1% of all articles of a similar age.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is, the article stated, a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria,” and that “youth with ROGD falsely believe that they are transgender,” in part due to social influences.
Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and the paper’s corresponding author, tweeted:
Bailey told Retraction Watch that he would “respond when [he] can” to our request for comment, following “new developments on our end.” Neither Springer Nature nor Kenneth Zucker, editor in chief of Archives of Sexual Behavior, has responded to similar requests.
The paper reported the results of a survey of parents who contacted the website ParentsofROGDKids.com, with which the first author is affiliated. According to the abstract, the authors found:
Pre-existing mental health issues were common, and youths with these issues were more likely than those without them to have socially and medically transitioned. Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their AYA [adolescent and young adult] child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.
Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn’t support the theory of ROGD.
Archives of Sexual Behavior is the official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research (IASR), which tweeted on April 19:
The episode prompted a May 5 “Open Letter in Support of Dr. Kenneth Zucker and the Need to Promote Robust Scientific Debate” from the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism that has now been signed by nearly 2000 people.
On May 10, the following publisher’s note was added to the article:
readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding methodology as described in this article. The publisher is currently investigating this matter and a further response will follow the conclusion of this investigation.
Six days later, the publisher removed the article’s supplementary information “due to a lack of documented consent by study participants.”
The story may feel familiar to readers who recall what happened to another paper in 2018. In that paper, Brown University’s Lisa Littman coined the term ROGD. Following a backlash, Brown took down a press release touting the results, and the paper was eventually republished with corrections.
Bailey has been accused of mistreating transgender research participants, but an investigation by bioethicist Alice Dreger found that of the many accusations, “almost none appear to have been legitimate.”
In a post on UnHerd earlier this month, Bailey responded to the reported concerns about the study lacking approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), and that the way the participants were recruited biased the results.
IRB approval was not necessary, Bailey wrote, because Suzanna Diaz, the first author who collected the data, was not affiliated with an institution that required it. “Suzanna Diaz” is a pseudonym for “the mother of a gender dysphoric child she believes has ROGD” who wishes to remain anonymous for the sake of her family, Bailey wrote.
The paper included the following statement about its ethical approval:
The first author and creator of the survey is not affiliated with any university or hospital. Thus, she did not seek approval from an IRB. After seeing a presentation of preliminary survey results by the first author, the second author suggested the data to be analyzed and submitted as an academic article (he was not involved in collecting the data). The second author consulted with his university’s IRB, who declined to certify the study because data were already collected. However, they advised that publishing the results was likely ethical provided data were deidentified. Editor’s note: After I reviewed the manuscript, I concluded that its publication is ethically appropriate, consistent with Springer policy.
In his UnHerd post, Bailey quoted from the journal’s submission guidelines:
If a study has not been granted ethics committee approval prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. The decision on whether to proceed to peer review in such cases is at the Editor’s discretion.
“Regarding the methodological limitations of the study, these were addressed forthrightly and thoroughly in our article,” Bailey wrote.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
My question here has nothing to do with the *subject* of the paper, only the process.
The segment reported above about ethical approval seems bonkers to me (beginning with “The [pseudonymous] first author and creator of the survey is not affiliated with any university or hospital” to “Editor’s note: After I reviewed the manuscript, I concluded that its publication is ethically appropriate, consistent with Springer policy.”)
By this logic, the journal seemingly could publish a paper with me [a fictional cat], as first author, purporting to study the behavioral impacts to people who were involved in barroom brawls. See, I go out and start a brawl and then survey people who were involved to see if the fight affected their behavior afterwards, and I did not get informed consent because I am not affiliated with a research institution and no one stopped me. No need for IRB approval… all I need to find is a co-author willing to publish an analysis of my (very interesting) data.
Could this editor believe that the ethics of my hypothetical scenario makes sense? Could this corresponding author believe my scenario makes sense?
I will repeat: My question here has nothing to do with the *subject* of the paper, only the process. I’m just curious as to how the ethical process should work, no matter the subject.
Dr. Baily: what am I missing here? Is my analogy different that this situation?
“Data” does not require university ethical approval prior to collection to necessarily be considered as potential material for a research study. Such a condition would prevent people from analyzing, for instance, existing data provided by an industry partner, or data collected by other market research companies, polling data etc, or transcripts of pre-existing interviews conducted by the media.
However, there is clearly something very odd in the process of an IRB declining to certify a study but simultaneously “advising that publishing the results was likely ethical”.
The procedure for doing this type of study in my local IRB would be to apply for ethical approval for a secondary data analysis study. This application involves specifying where the original data came from, and the IRB assess the ethical issues in treating this as research data. They would then certify whether analyzing it as a new piece of (academic) research to meet ethical criteria or not.
Thank you for responding. I’m not sure this is exactly right, but I’m not an expert.
Aren’t studies sometimes retracted because the data was generated in an unethical manner (by someone other than the researchers themselves)?
For example: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/06/study-of-chinas-ethnic-minorities-retracted-as-dozens-of-papers-come-under-scrutiny-for-ethical-violations/
Coming in here late, but yes this is essentially how an ethics review of this type of information would work. There could be no retrospective approval of data collection. However, if the data was not collected by a researcher who falls under the auspices of the REB (Canada context for me) then there would have been no misconduct (data collection without review) and the REB could make the determination to allow the use of the data. Hopefully with a careful review of where the data came from, how it was collected, and what consent or promises were made to participants initially. It would be up to the researcher (not the data gatherer in this context) to ensure that the data is represented accurately, and to do any follow up studies required to verify it before making claims based on it.
First, ignoring an IRB does not, by itself, make the data collection process unethical. This remains true even if there is an obligation – of whatever sort – to request an IRB approval; and if this obligation is not complied with.
Secondly, many IRBs have a policy not to review projects using data that has already been collected. This makes some sense, though it should not be taken as the only ethical approach.
Thirdly, some IRBs do not, as a matter of policy, review projects whose main authors are not affiliated with the IRB’s institution. And in these cases institutions do not require affiliated “secondary” authors to go though the process.
Fourthly, whether data is collected ethically or not can, in most cases, and should, where appropriate, be established by the publisher. But publishers prefer to pass the buck.
And fifth, in some cases consent is considered (or should be considered) presumed or implicit in the act of participation. For example, where respondents are not captive audience, confined to a close space, can easily stop reponding or leave, understand what is going on and what responding requires a.s.o.
In short, the existence of procedures and of an enforcing authority need not make activities ignoring those procedures unethical.
Restricting who can publish is not just. We should not bar those who are not affiliated with an institute from authorship of research in which they were instrumental in conducting (such as community-engagement, citizen-science, or research conducted with industry partners).
Also, ethics is designed and implemented to protect the University from liability, NOT to protect participants or researchers.
The author speaks in the abstract about a “hierarchical executive function model”, but never explained it in the paper. Metholodogically flawed. In fact, if you google this term, it’s only him using it.
In short it means your cognition acts as an executive (function), residing on the highest hierarchical level, and is most times able to control your behaviour.
4 months ago, the retracted article had 100,000 views. That is probably 100 times more views than had the article been published without opposition. You have to concede this: those censoring fools sure know how to popularize ideas they want to disappear.
The comment by Lorenzo indicates that he is obviously not a disinterested objective researcher.
That doesn’t make him wrong.
Or right
The process of science should be disinterested. Scientists are often human, and engaged. Why else would they care about topics. Were the authors of the original paper disinterested? When you are engaged, it makes it much easier to see the flaws in others’ arguments (if not your own), and that friction is what makes the scientific enterprise work.
The most suspect portion of this sequence lies not in the acceptance/ analysis/publication, but in the spineless publisher bowing to societal and activist pressure by ‘professionals’ who would, hopefully, embrace conceptual widening of analytical views. Silencing alternate theories fails to strengthen discourse.
Argue, present alternate data, reconcile conflicting facts, and pursue intelligent dialog – bullying those who violate one’s precious ideology by targeting minor non- issues creates intellectual darkness. I suggest Desmet’s “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” for expanded description of ” . . . Science matches theory to reality . . . Ideology creates a reality to match theory . . .” (paraphrased).
I agree with your well- worded response. I don’t understand the ins/outs of publishing articles, but I do understand that the content for which this article was published deserves more conversation of the topic, not suppression of it.
Agreed
Pure woke politics.
All this based on the claim the survey parents didn’t sign a waiver, after they filled out a very lengthy form? This temper tantrum letter couldn’t have anything to do with could it?
https://asbopenletter.com
It’s also not a very informative paper. Distressed parents are seeking something to blame, and this identifies their bogeyman, but may not give any information about the actual issues or time course (look at Covid reporting for similar examples).
Alice Dreger is not an impartial observer in her defense of Bailey. She literally wrote a book to defend him before.
See
Alice Dreger, Autogynephilia, and the Misrepresentation of Trans Sexualities, Zinnia Jones (2016)
https://genderanalysis.net/2016/04/alice-dreger-autogynephilia-and-the-misrepresentation-of-trans-sexualities-book-review-galileos-middle-finger/
How does that render one unobjective? Do historians who write books defending the standard account of the Holocaust automatically become unobjective?
A critical comment on who exactly signed the letter from the “Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism” would have been useful. Many of the signatories are people, such as Sharon Davies and Maya Forstater, who base much of their (social) media presence simply on espousing transphobic rhetoric.
Other individuals that appear, multiple times, include academics from unrelated disciplines who have published a number of works using inaccurate methodologies and evidence to argue against transgender inclusion and the protection of existing rights.
One may very well be led to believe that the people who are so happy to support the publication of work on the basis of flawed data simply because it supports their pet hypothesis against trans people might not be entirely trustworthy in their apparent agenda of being against “intolerance”.
Came here to say this. The list of signatories to the letter in support of Zucker, and the organisation FAIR that coordinated that action, should have been discussed for context.
Many of the signatories aren’t scientists (Abigail Shrier, Sharon Davies, Maya Forstater, Stephanie Davies-Arai) and many of the signatories who could be considered scientists or professionals in relevant fields are well known for the their anti-trans activism/stance (Jordan Peterson, Stella O’Malley, Michael Biggs, Stephen Levine, Emma Hilton, Jon Pike et al).
The signatories are often associated with groups which endorse so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and campaign against transgender healthcare and transgender rights, often funded by fundamentalist religious organisations or opaque sources (Genspect, SEGM, Transgender Trend, Sex Matters).
FAIR campaign against inclusion policies and are a deeply problematic organisation with a deliberately misleading name. They have campaigned against protections for transgender youth in schools, as well as against Critical Race Theory.
There is arguably a huge amount of ideological bias behind the motive for the open letter supporting Zucker and the Bailey paper.
>The signatories are often associated with groups which endorse so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and campaign against transgender healthcare and transgender rights, often funded by fundamentalist religious organisations or opaque sources (Genspect, SEGM, Transgender Trend, Sex Matters).
Can you provide evidence that these organizations are supporting the “conversion therapy” of homosexuals?
So what exactly is the difference between being critical of relying solely on gender-affirming care, and “espousing transphobic rhetoric”? It seems like your argument here is that they are questioning current practices, but their arguments should not be acknowledged because they tend to question current practices. Don’t you see the circular reasoning here?
I am not yet sure which side of this argument I fall, and because I’m a scientist I would like to see more empirical data either way. If gender-affirming care truly does produce better outcomes then i’m all for it – but the fact that any disagreement is being quashed leads me to believe that there are ulterior motives at play. I think the FAIR letter had a good point that oft-cited papers in the field already do rely on parent surveys for data – but that because they do not question the status quo, they are not attacked. In general I think it is, and always will be, a bad idea to make it harder to publish research just because it contains dissenting opinions. We can either hold ALL the research in the field to a higher standard, or none of it.
If an anorexic demands stomach reduction surgery to affirm their delusion (their true self: thin), this person would be very happy. Especially short term. But we don’t affirm their identity, do we?
The performative hysteria, vicious ad hominem attacks, and social media vendettas launched against academics (Lisa Litmann lost her consulting job) who simply speculate about the existence of “ROGD,” is reminiscent of the coercive thought control practiced in Orwell’s “Oceania.”
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Someone set up a whole new gender dysphoria research institute and made Dr. Littman — who is trained as an OB/Gyn, by the way, not as a behaviorist and has precisely two (2) publications on gender — the director: https://icgdr.org/about/
So she’s probably going to be fine.
Officially retracted om 14 June 2023: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02635-1
For the TRA (trans rights advocates) who signed the statement calling for the retraction, the notion of ROGD is not accepted. That’s because the TRA idea is that trans is a “permanent characteristic” of a person. ROGD, which is a social contagion or social hysteria, is not accepted by the TRA community. This notion of “permanent characteristic” also explains why desistance is ignored by the trans community.
The retraction is purely Woke science politics. It should never have happened. There are THOUSANDS of other studies based on internet data collection. One of the most prominent TRA physicians, Jack Turban, has published several articles from the US Trans Survey, which is an internet survey with no consent statement.
Yes, this survey was just as valid as the surveys on anti-vaccination sites which ‘prove’ that vaccination causes all manner of ills. Tu quoque is not a good look for science.
False. The US Trans Survey was reviewed and approved by the University of California, Los Angeles Institutional Review Board.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with online surveys, but they’re not all of equivalent quality. For instance, the entire evidence base for ROGD is a convenience sample of 256 proxy reporters using an unvalidated instrument. The US Trans Survey, by contrast, used a validated instrument to survey over 27,000 respondents in all 50 states recruited through 400 different organizations. Though the 2015 survey was cross-sectional, the survey just finished collecting its second wave of data.
So what? Since when convenience sample or small/smaller sample is argument for retraction of a paper? Sure, maybe they should have filed IRB paperwork, but there is plenty of survey research done in and out of academia without IRB. What was the risk to human subjects? That the questions would “offend” them?
Asking kids what their gender is is far more offensive and constitutes in and itself a form of harm as the question implies that gender somehow were something they could choose, like their favorite color or ice cream. That could well have deleterious consequences to their well being, how they perceive the world, and not necessarily in a good way. Giving access to children to trans activists is also a major experiment and nobody asks IRB (or the parents for that matter) if half-naked dancers would not cause harm.
The journal should be embarrassed for caving in, and the arguments used by the trans bullies here and online are appalling.
CPSR 37229 – 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey contains privacy notice and consent form that participants check beforehand. So why do you say that this is not the case?
There are several issues going on here:
a) Whether private individuals with no academic affiliation should be allowed at all to publish research that involves human subjects.
Argument why this should not be allowed: By comparison, you’re not allowed to drive a car on public roads without third party liability insurance. The analogy is that research on human subjects should not be done without the backing of an institution with sufficiently deep pockets that it will be able to pay out if the research participants successfully sue.
Personally, I’m ok with research by unaffilated researchers.
2. Collaborations between affiliated and non-affiliated reseachers.
I am rather concerned by the principle being advanced in this case that ethics committee approval was not needed for the institutionally-affiliated researcher. This loophole would seem to open up the university to being sued for all manner of things that evaded its notice. (e.g. in the hypothetical example posted above, by people who got punched out by Cheshire Cat in the course of an experiment on brawls and are now suing the university for damages.
3. IRB review of methodology
In the case of my institution, at least, the ethics committee will review the proposed experiment for methodological soundness, as well as potential harm. If your methodology is bogus, no approval, even if the experiment is harmless.
In this particular case. serious concerns have been raised about the soundness of the methodology.
I think there are good arguments that IRB should have reviewed this for methodological soundness, even if the data was already collected. [likely IRB/peer review comment: you actually need additional data, because the data you have is subject to obvious biases which you need to account for]
Personally, when I do research on human subjects I;m subjects to IRB approval both by by institution, and — for some funding bodies — also by the source of the funding.
Good question whether they’d allow this loophole. I’m not sure i’d even dare ask the funding body, for fear they’d suspect us for even asking and come down on us. My own institution might be more amenable to a “this is a hypothetical question prompted because someone else elsewhere got away with this loophole, and I think we ought to ban it.
The paper is fine, at least not too different than so many other papers based on surveys — many of which corroborate the trans movement — and whose editors aren’t bullied into retraction.
In the future we will look back into this era as a period of scientific shame and embarrassment, in which weak editors have to cave in to pressure from organized online lobbies, and major journals relish in appeasing that same mob.
There is no thing — and, never has been — like objective science. Thanks to Retraction Watch for showing how the “sausage” gets made!