QUOTE
Big fuss over bigfoot on campus
The doctrine of academic freedom is so important that I believe it should be violated only in extreme and rare cases. Studying a subject that is a little weird is not one of those cases.
Recently, Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University’s Department of Biological Sciences, has become a figure of some controversy for his study of bigfoot. Meldrum, an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology, leans toward belief in the hairy man-giant and has just penned a new book about his views, “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.”
Some of Meldrum’s fellow professors are not pleased. Twenty of them signed a letter to university officials asserting that Meldrum’s actions might cause the school “to be perceived as a university that endorses fringe science over fundamental scientific perspectives that have withstood critical inquiry.”
Meldrum’s research is privately funded. He teaches mostly courses related to human anatomy at the university, and there haven’t been any complaints about him going off on bigfoot-related tangents in class.
To me, Meldrum’s topic, though esoteric, meets three tests.
One, unlike the study of, say, intelligent design and other forms of creationism, researching bigfoot does not come burdened with a political or religious agenda that trumps the scientific method or leads a researcher to distort data. Meldrum is not hell bent on using his status as a public university professor to promote a sectarian agenda or “prove” some right-wing point.
Two, Meldrum’s research is not hurting anyone. Dr. John Mack, the late, controversial psychiatrist who taught at Harvard, became convinced that alien abductions were real and wrote several books on the topic. I think Mack committed a form of malpractice. The people who believe they are being abducted by aliens suffer from a form of neurosis, and Mack, instead of helping them, fed their delusions by saying, “Yes, you really are being sucked out of your window at night and probed by evil gray aliens.” This is irresponsible. Harvard never cracked down on Mack, but in my view the university would have been justified in doing so. Meldrum’s work looks harmless by comparison.
Finally, there is a small possibility that Meldrum’s research could result in significant findings. I believe the possibility that the sasquatch exists is very remote — but there is a case for the creature, and Meldrum should have the right to make it. By contrast, people who try to debunk Darwinism, prove that the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old or deny the Holocaust are wasting their time since there is no possibility their “research” will ever add anything of value to science or history.
The answer to this controversy is more science, not less. Let Meldrum’s critics point out where they believe he is wrong. Indeed, one professor, David J. Daegling, an anthropologist as the University of Florida, spars with Meldrum pretty regularly. (Daegling is the author of “Bigfoot Exposed,” a skeptical tome.)
Watching these guys slug it out through peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals or at academic conferences may not be the most exciting way to spend time, but it’s how real science is done. I would urge Meldrum’s critics at Idaho State to let the man make his best case for bigfoot. If it is weak, I can assure them that someone will come along and point that out.
The doctrine of academic freedom is so important that I believe it should be violated only in extreme and rare cases. Studying a subject that is a little weird is not one of those cases.
Recently, Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University’s Department of Biological Sciences, has become a figure of some controversy for his study of bigfoot. Meldrum, an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology, leans toward belief in the hairy man-giant and has just penned a new book about his views, “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.”
Some of Meldrum’s fellow professors are not pleased. Twenty of them signed a letter to university officials asserting that Meldrum’s actions might cause the school “to be perceived as a university that endorses fringe science over fundamental scientific perspectives that have withstood critical inquiry.”
Meldrum’s research is privately funded. He teaches mostly courses related to human anatomy at the university, and there haven’t been any complaints about him going off on bigfoot-related tangents in class.
To me, Meldrum’s topic, though esoteric, meets three tests.
One, unlike the study of, say, intelligent design and other forms of creationism, researching bigfoot does not come burdened with a political or religious agenda that trumps the scientific method or leads a researcher to distort data. Meldrum is not hell bent on using his status as a public university professor to promote a sectarian agenda or “prove” some right-wing point.
Two, Meldrum’s research is not hurting anyone. Dr. John Mack, the late, controversial psychiatrist who taught at Harvard, became convinced that alien abductions were real and wrote several books on the topic. I think Mack committed a form of malpractice. The people who believe they are being abducted by aliens suffer from a form of neurosis, and Mack, instead of helping them, fed their delusions by saying, “Yes, you really are being sucked out of your window at night and probed by evil gray aliens.” This is irresponsible. Harvard never cracked down on Mack, but in my view the university would have been justified in doing so. Meldrum’s work looks harmless by comparison.
Finally, there is a small possibility that Meldrum’s research could result in significant findings. I believe the possibility that the sasquatch exists is very remote — but there is a case for the creature, and Meldrum should have the right to make it. By contrast, people who try to debunk Darwinism, prove that the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old or deny the Holocaust are wasting their time since there is no possibility their “research” will ever add anything of value to science or history.
The answer to this controversy is more science, not less. Let Meldrum’s critics point out where they believe he is wrong. Indeed, one professor, David J. Daegling, an anthropologist as the University of Florida, spars with Meldrum pretty regularly. (Daegling is the author of “Bigfoot Exposed,” a skeptical tome.)
Watching these guys slug it out through peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals or at academic conferences may not be the most exciting way to spend time, but it’s how real science is done. I would urge Meldrum’s critics at Idaho State to let the man make his best case for bigfoot. If it is weak, I can assure them that someone will come along and point that out.
