Baker Robert
Bioethics. 2014 May;28(4):166-9. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12093.
In 'New Threats to Academic Freedom' Francesca Minerva argues that anonymity for the authors of controversial articles is a prerequisite for academic freedom in the Internet age. This argument draws its intellectual and emotional power from the author's account of the reaction to the on-line publication of ' After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'--an article that provoked cascades of hostile postings and e-mails. Reflecting on these events, Minerva proposes that publishers should offer the authors of controversial articles the option of publishing their articles anonymously. This response reviews the history of anonymous publication and concludes that its reintroduction in the Internet era would recreate problems similar to those that led print journals to abandon the practice: corruption of scholarly discourse by invective and hate speech, masked conflicts of interest, and a diminution of editorial accountability. It also contends that Minerva misreads the intent of the hostile e-mails provoked by 'After-birth abortion,' and that ethicists who publish controversial articles should take responsibility by dialoguing with their critics--even those whose critiques are emotionally charged and hostile.
在《学术自由面临的新威胁》一文中，弗朗西斯卡·米内尔瓦认为，在互联网时代，有争议文章的作者保持匿名是学术自由的一个先决条件。这一论点的智识和情感力量源自作者对《产后堕胎：为何要让婴儿存活？》在线发表后所引发反应的描述，该文章激起了一连串充满敌意的帖子和电子邮件。反思这些事件后，米内尔瓦提议，出版商应为有争议文章的作者提供匿名发表文章的选项。本回应回顾了匿名发表的历史，并得出结论：在互联网时代重新引入匿名发表会再次引发类似那些导致纸质期刊放弃这一做法的问题，即学术话语被谩骂和仇恨言论腐蚀、利益冲突被掩盖以及编辑问责制的削弱。它还认为，米内尔瓦误解了《产后堕胎》引发的那些充满敌意的电子邮件的意图，而且发表有争议文章的伦理学家应该通过与批评者对话来承担责任，即便那些批评者言辞激烈且充满敌意。
