udo schuklenk 🏳️‍🌈🇨🇦🇦🇺🇩🇪

Academic Integrity Is Coming Increasingly Under Attack From Academics Using AI Tools as a Short‐Cut to Publications - Schuklenk - Bioethics - Wiley Online Library onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bi…

@DavidResnik1962 @rohanpaul_ai Preach it David! Fittingly it was published where it was published.

@rohanpaul_ai Dumb paper that misunderstands what llms are capable of and underestimates the value of routine science...very few people can do the kind of revolutionary science that is beyond llm capabilities

A new paper published in Nature Astronomy says if LLM can easily replicate what counts as your scientific contribution, then the deeper problem is not the model, but the fact that the work was too routine, formulaic, or low-value to begin with. --- nature .com/articles/s41550-026-02837-2

@fake_journals @Sonamsangbo Perhaps AI reviews AI and we could go on a boat ride? Or bake a cake?

Peer review may be entering the age of verification For decades, peer review has operated largely on trust. Editors trust reviewers to read papers carefully. Authors trust reviewers to evaluate work fairly. Publishers trust the community to follow agreed rules. But a recent case from an international conference suggests this trust-based model may be changing. The conference rejected 497 papers after discovering that some authors had used large language models (LLMs) to generate peer reviews, despite agreeing not to do so. Importantly, the papers were rejected because the authors used AI when reviewing, not because of problems with their submitted research. See buff.ly/odQDVkh for details. The detection method was unusual. ________________________________________ A hidden test for AI reviewers Conference organisers embedded hidden instructions inside manuscripts sent to reviewers. These instructions were invisible to humans but readable by LLMs. If a reviewer used an LLM to generate the review, the model might follow those hidden instructions and include specific phrases. Those phrases acted as a signal. The result: ⚫️ 506 reviewers were flagged ⚫️ 795 reviews were identified as AI-generated ⚫️ 497 papers were rejected for violating the policy Organisers said the issue was not the quality of the reviews. It was integrity and trust. ________________________________________ An emerging arms race What makes this case particularly interesting is the symmetry. There have already been reports of authors hiding prompts inside manuscripts to instruct LLMs to avoid criticism and/or give favourable recommendations. Now we see the opposite. Conferences hiding prompts in papers to detect AI-generated reviews. In other words: ⚫️ Researchers testing whether reviewers use AI ⚫️ Conferences testing whether reviewers use AI It begins to look like an arms race. ________________________________________ From trust to verification For most of its history, peer review relied on professional norms. There were few mechanisms to verify how a review had actually been produced. AI changes that. When reviews can be generated instantly by a model, incentives and behaviours change, peer review may be entering a new phase. ________________________________________ A question for the research community AI tools are already widely used in research workflows. Some surveys suggest more than half of researchers now use AI when preparing peer reviews, often despite policies discouraging it. This raises an uncomfortable question. Should the goal be to ban AI from peer review? Or should the focus shift to transparent and responsible use? If AI becomes embedded in research practice, enforcing absolute prohibition may prove difficult. ________________________________________ What do you think? If AI tools are now part of everyday research practice, should their use in peer review be prohibited, or is disclosure enough?

@CreationIsLove @SecKennedy 🤡🤡🤡

@SecKennedy RFK Jr. Is likely the best Secretary America has ever had. Not just HHS, but across all Agencies. He is making serious changes in the lives of Americans, and making America healthier. Thank you sir. 🙏

Under this administration, vaccine injuries will be reported and studied. Individuals who suffer them will not be denied, marginalized, vilified or gaslit. They will be welcomed and we will learn everything that we can about them so that we can improve the safety of these products.

Conscientious Refuser Accommodation Continues to Undermine Patient Care - Schuklenk - Bioethics - Wiley Online Library onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bi…

@BishStrickland 🤡🤡🤡

Some will cry “too harsh” but enough is enough… With the appointment of Fr. Thomas Hennen, bishop-elect, as bishop of Baker, Oregon, we face a troubling reality: instead of correcting the trajectory set by Pope Francis, Pope Leo XIV is doubling down on it – deepening the ambiguity that has plagued the Church.   Fr. Hennen is not merely a well-meaning pastor – he was intimately involved in drafting pastoral guidelines that blur the clear lines of Catholic teaching on sexuality and gender. His work with Davenport’s LGBTQ+ directive may carry the veneer of welcoming language, but in substance it echoes the rhetorical strategies of gender ideology, undermining Catholic clarity and weakening the call to chastity. When who we are as men and women becomes negotiable, the Gospel becomes negotiable.   This doctrinal smokescreen is the hallmark of the Lavender Mafia – a clandestine network within the Church hierarchy that protects and advances a homosexual ideology while masquerading under the banner of compassion. It gained unprecedented influence during the Francis era: from the explicit approval of same-sex blessings to episcopal cover-ups. Its tentacles now reach into the Leo papacy, and Fr. Hennen’s appointment is proof.   Pope Francis presided over a doctrinal collapse: Fiducia Supplicansgreen-lighted blessings of same-sex unions, plain and simple. That rupture has not been undone by Pope Leo – it is being compounded. As shepherds, we are called not to pick our metaphors but to call sin precisely; and when mercy soft-soils truth, souls are lost.   As bishops, we have a sacred duty to cry out to Our Holy Father: if you are serious about reform, dismantle this network of confusion. Remove ideologues who use pastoral language to conceal doctrinal erosion. Appoint shepherds who preach the unvarnished, uncompromised Gospel of Christ – not politically correct euphemisms dressed in synodal platitudes.   I speak not in a spirit of rebellion, but fidelity to Christ and His Bride. If that is too strong for Rome, then the silence from the top is deafening proof that nothing has changed.   The faithful deserve better. The Bride of Christ demands better. We will remain loud, unwavering, and clear. No more blessings without conversion. No more ambiguity. No more Lavender Mafia!

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/de… #hiv #bioethics #globalhealth

Higher education is in crisis. Why was it not a bigger campaign issue for Ontario's political parties during the election? @namshine spoke with Anne Sado (@GBCollege), @AlexUsherHESA (@HESA_News), and @LizzieBuckner (@OISEUofT) #onpoli #onpse youtube.com/watch?v=ItrSUn…

@melb4886 @Docstockk You have a reference this (compulsory sex). Love to read that view in context.

@Docstockk Why do people think that having legal AD means having *compulsory* AD? It reminds me of when the contraceptive pill became available. Some people thought it made having sex compulsory for women.

The thing that leaps out of Assisted Dying Bill is that its drafters think terminal illness means your life is not worth living. That's why process doesn't ask about your reasons to die. They think reasons are obvious. It's value judgement dressed up as autonomy.

@ConservativeLA @CjgbVictoria Exactly, the unbearably suffering decisionally capable patient gets a label attached (vulnerable or some such), voila, their agency is removed on the back of that label. Strong paternalist decides they know better. Staggering arrogance.

@CjgbVictoria And everybody gets a say in it, except the terminally-ill.

@ConservativeLA @HildegardP Worse, it’s a bullshit argument on the face of it. If they were correct in their assumptions (and they are not), improve palliative care and people apparently wouldn’t choose euthanasia. So euthanasia has zilch to do with any of this. cambridge.org/core/journals/…

@HildegardP Do terminally-ill people have agency as to the time and manner of their deaths, or not? A simple question, invariably avoided.

@Docstockk Such a bizarre interpretation… in any case, my 3cents worth on access thresholds cambridge.org/core/journals/…

At long last, it’s out 👀 #bioethics #maid #euthanasia cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Our new book is out, the comprehensive case against conscientious objection accommodation in health care provision- Open Access here: Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Health Care | Oxford Academic academic.oup.com/book/59460

Long time in the making, but this is finally coming out in January. We provide a systematic case against a right to conscientious objection in health care. @TORCHOxford @ethicsinthenews @OxMedHum @ANTITH3SES @OUPAcademic @OUPPhilosophy . Digital version will be Open Access

Out in a few weeks, our latest book, available at your bookstore or free of charge as a digital download @OUPAcademic

This months' Bioethics editorial by Udo @schuklenk , worth a read: Protecting controversial thought: Editing Bioethics in the age of social media facilitated outrage - Schuklenk - Bioethics - Wiley Online Library onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…