The thread concerns whether the author was “thinking outside the box” so it helps if all points are made within the context of the dissertation (including comparing it to additional/contradictory research). Not an easy task! @MaineLonghorn let us know if that makes sense.
@JHS, The author does address the “rights” question but it seemed more to highlight the direction he feels the debate is moving - or, perhaps, what he believes that the debate is truly about. You appear to be completely ahead of the game already, based on your study. However, I’m wondering why, if the subject was such a nothing burger, the author had so much trouble with his thesis advisor and ethics complaints and so forth despite no issues in review. You’d think if it was a trivial subject that he would have been told exactly that and sent off to look for another topic. So the whole controversy is a mystery to me, unless he touched a hot wire somewhere. The Biologist survey seemed to be that hot wire, based on the (admittedly slanted) news articles. But again, such an obvious question with an easy answer shouldn’t cause more than a few yawns or some questioning as to relevance. This is generalizing a bit, but my impression is that, at UChicago at least, bad dissertation topics are shut down well before they get to committee, weak or flawed work (typically the result of sloppy oversight) are fleshed out in committee with the student sent back for a re-do on at least parts of it, and “meh” dissertations are passed holding one’s nose but w/o much fanfare. And that’s what I observed 25-30 years ago, when Hannah Gray had just completed her work on improving the graduate student programs. I believe the process for reviewing and passing a dissertation has much improved since then, but of course each department is going to be distinct in terms of interests, foci and perhaps even standards.
Insights, anyone?