Reprecussions of the Busting of a Research Peer-Review Ring

In mid-July, news outlets reported on the crackdown on an academic journal "publishing and citation ring." The publication at hand is the Journal of Vibration and Control. At the heart of the ring is associate professor Chen Chen-yuan (Peter Chen) from National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan. Apparently, Chen and possible others had created ~130 alias online accounts as puppet reviewers for the journal, with Chen reviewing at least one of his own submissions. The publisher SAGE and the journal editor-in-chief, Prof. Ali Nayfeh, discovered peer reviews using templates for responses and were unable to reach these reviewers. SAGE confronted Chen, who may not have cooperated with the investigation. Subsequently, SAGE notified the university and retracted 60 articles involved in the ring. Under investigation by the university, Chen resigned his position at NPUE. Nayfeh also stepped down from his position as editor. It is unclear how many people were involved in the ring, but other researchers may have unwittingly been included as co-authors. Among the authors listed on the retractions were Peter Chen's brother, Chen Chen-wu, and Peter's former thesis advisor, Wei-ling Chiang—the Taiwan Cabinet's Minister of Education. This led to calls for Chiang resignation from the cabinet. Though Chiang maintains his innocence, he submitted his resignation. Peter Chen subsequently issued an open apology to Chiang for his indiscretion in using Chiang's name. Taiwan's Ministry of Science and Technology has also gotten involved as it had provided $170,000 in funds towards Chen's research. Furthermore, Chen could face charges of forgery.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/

Educating Ignorance and the Denial of AIDS

The article Beyond Critical Thinking, Michael S. Roth evaluates the current state of education in the humanities. He praises the efforts to teach critical thinking but decries the direction it has taken in fostering counterproductiveness (or counterproduction?). In the current climate of humanities:

A common way to show that one has sharpened one's critical thinking is to display an ability to see through or undermine statements made by (or beliefs held by) others. Thus, our best students are really good at one aspect of critical thinking­—being critical. For many students today, being smart means being critical...But this participation, being entirely negative, is not only seriously unsatisfying; it is ultimately counterproductive.

The skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not completely without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of self-satisfied debunkers or, to use a currently fashionable word on campuses, people who like to "trouble" ideas. In overdeveloping the capacity to show how texts, institutions, or people fail to accomplish what they set out to do, we may be depriving students of the capacity to learn as much as possible from what they study. In a humanities culture in which being smart often means being a critical unmasker, our students may become too good at showing how things don't make sense. That very skill may diminish their capacity to find or create meaning and direction in the books they read and the world in which they live.

This bring me to a terrifying and ridiculous example of this type of critical thinking and also the lack of critical thinking. A soon to be released "documentary" called House of Numbers (directed by Brent T. Leung) brings "evidence" towards proving that HIV/AIDS does not exist, or more specifically that HIV does not exist and AIDS is only an imaginary construct and conspiracy of the scientific and medical community used to gain more patients to treat. There is even suggestion that people with AIDS are being unnecessarily treated. This is the counterproductive critical thinking. Pair this anti-establishment "thinking" with those who lack critical thinking but trust media and you have a dangerous mix as reflected among video comments such as, "Oh so [this means] you can get exposed to it multiple times and not catch it." I say this is recklessness and verges on madness to subject the public to a mockery of a documentary with painful implications.

Here are example allegations used to discredit the scientific/medical community:

Allegation #1: HIV and AIDS are different.

Truth: it is true that HIV and AIDS are different and the scientific community agrees with this. HIV is the virus. AIDS is the syndrome that it causes.

Allegation #2: There are so many possible symptoms that can be associated with AIDS, it cannot be real.

Truth: The symptoms can be wide and varied because of how the particular virus operates. It debilitates your immune system, making it susceptible to other infections. Its like taking the roof off a house. The house is exposed to precipitation, but the lack of a roof does not dictate the type of precipitation that you will get.

Because I haven't seen this film yet I can only comment on what has been shown by the trailer and expressed by those who have seen it at film festivals and advanced screening.