‘Theory’ is a word that is often bounded around in the media and politics. It is also very extensively used in the sciences. However, it is here that it often takes on a different meaning to that which the public assume, a meaning that does not accurately convey the scientific process.

Science is comprised of very little fact and very, very many theories, also known as hypotheses. To be frank, any scientist that presents their work as fact should be discredited immediately and hang their head in shame. Each scientifically accepted theory, or hypothesis, is merely the best estimation available to describe or explain the relevant observation(s). It is an idea that has survived the rigours of peer-review and repeated and independent verification to become accepted as the best explanation available to account for the observed results. Even at this point however, it is not fact. Far from it. New information, analysis or technology may in the future, near or distant, prove it wrong despite years, decades or even centuries of obedient acceptance, and a new theory will have to be devised, tested and retested to take its predecessor’s place. This is how science is done, how it progresses and moves forwards. The ephemeral nature of the process, from inception to acceptance, is perhaps what sets science apart from other disciplines. No theory is sacred; they can all be revolutionised in an instant.

This definition extends to include popular and extensively researched hypotheses, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection and Einstein’s theory of relativity – itself a product of revolutionising Newton’s earlier theory of gravitation that had been accepted for over 300 years. These are the best, the most rigorously tested and repeatedly challenged theories to survive the scientific process and become accepted as the nearest available approximation to describe the speciation of  living creatures and the physical laws governing the movement of large planetary bodies, respectively. They are great examples of theories that have stood the test of time: evolution by natural selection first being proposed by biologists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid to late 19th century.

As a great example of the misapprehension of the meaning of theory in the scientific sense, evolution as a ‘theory’ is one of the favourite jumping-off points for religious creationists who point to the perceived uncertainty inferred by the word as an effective argument against its ability to accurately describe the fundamental driving force behind biology. “Ah, but it’s only a theory”, they say, “and therefore it is merely your opinion that it is more effective at describing speciation than the Genesis saga of the Old Testament”.  This viewpoint illustrates two things. Firstly, a fundamental misunderstanding of the term ‘theory’ as a descriptor of a scientific paradigm, and secondly, a basic understanding of biology.

An example of a testable theory (from the wonderful webcomic xkcd)

Just because it is ‘only’ a theory doesn’t mean it can be completely discredited in one fell-swoop. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and paradigm-changing ideas are only very rarely accepted as theory without serious opposition and incredible evidence. Generally, it is a gradual process – improvement, tinkering, refining, acceptance. If creationist ideas had anywhere remotely near as much scientifically verified evidence in support as evolution does, it would have to be accepted by science. The process is not defined by the religious ideas or politics of individual scientists, despite the insistence of certain areas of the media, but rather by whichever theory has the greater corroborating evidence behind it. If it was the case that it was creationism or intelligent design or aliens that were responsible for differentiating all life on Earth, and the evidence was robust, scientists would be in support. But the fact, and this is a fact, is that it simply isn’t.

Most undergraduate degrees in the U.K. are taught in a modular fashion, with an allocation of ‘credits’ or similar granted to each student to select individual courses, usually in the department or school in which their degree is based, and construct a semi-personalised degree programme. Students normally take half a dozen modules a year, and these are assessed using a combination of coursework assignments, exams or research papers.

The recent emergence of ‘freelance writing’ websites has provided unwilling or unable undergraduates the opportunity to ‘outsource’ their coursework, for a reasonable fee naturally. I suspected that undergraduates (and even postgrads) are using these services to submit essays and dissertations that are not original, effectively degrading the academic integrity of their degree and those of their peers in the process. These sites undoubtedly profit from this arrangement, and I consider them to be fully aware of the potential for abuse of their system and its effect on higher education, but they have a number of loopholes to exploit that avoid the possibility of any wrongdoing on their part.

I recently signed up to one of these sites as a freelance researcher to further investigate the nature of the industry, and the level and subject of submissions. My intention was merely to observe and investigate and I feel that it is worth mentioning that I never completed or entered a bid for any project, and received no payment. I also think it’s probably best that I do not mention the name of the website, as I’m sure I couldn’t afford to defend myself against any legal proceedings that their studious lawyers may bring against me. What I will say however is that they vet their researchers thoroughly; I had to provide details of my qualifications (degree certificates etc.) and identity and these were vehemently scrutinised for a number of days before I was accepted.

The ‘briefs’ are organised on a central page and researchers can review and bid on them depending on their level and area of expertise. In my experience, many of the projects came from legal and social science courses, but other subjects such as engineering, health and biology were also well represented. All levels of work are available, from A-level to PhD. Many of the briefs were very brazen about the fact that they were very obviously intended to be submitted as a dissertation or piece of graded coursework, as opposed to the ‘research’ or ‘note-making’ that the website’s administrators claimed their service was providing. For example, the screen-capture below clearly shows that the project submitted by the researcher will be submitted as a PhD proposal in the field of management, for entry to a UK university.

Screen capture showing part of a 'brief' for a PhD proposal.

Often, the clients would neglect to remove some of the course information from the supplementary information provided with their brief, and it was relatively easy to use a search engine to trace the negligently included course codes back to the UK university where the course was obviously being run and the student paying for the services were based. For example, the image below is taken from the documentation supplied with a brief posted a couple of months ago. It clearly shows the course code and name of the module, which I found to originate from Portsmouth University’s School of Languages and Area Studies’ undergraduate module unsurprisingly entitled, The Structure of English.

Image taken from supplementary documentation supplied with a brief.

Certain phrases or acronyms can also reveal the source of a brief. For example, the use of the the phrase ‘Geography Undergraduate Thesis’ and the submission location in the ‘Global Studies Research Centre’ in the supplementary information supplied with a brief on sand-dunes brought me fairly rapidly to the Geography Department at Sussex University, where it was confirmed  by a member of staff that the document provided was an excerpt from the undergraduate handbook. The price for the completion of this work was £379.

In many cases, the header and course codes were removed or obscured from the attached material to prevent them from being traced back to their origin. The evidence that this ‘freelance writing’ service is being used to commit serious academic misconduct is fairly substantial, but what can be done about it?

As it turns out, not much. The researchers’ submissions are thoroughly screened for plagiarism before being accepted, thus making their detection by university plagiarism software difficult as the work is essentially original, but fraudulent in its origin. The writers are also well paid, the going rate being around £500 per 10000 words for undergraduate work, so there is little incentive for them to object. The image posted below illustrates this point; completing a PhD project in Tax Law would land you a cool £1872.

Screen capture from freelance writing website showing the fee for the completion of a PhD project in tax law.

In an attempt to address the issue, I contacted a number of departments, including those mentioned above, with my concerns and provided them with as much information and evidence as possible. Many were indifferent, some were surprised, but the main response was one of indignant futility. Little could be done to ensure that the work was submitted by the student whose name was on the front unless it was flagged up by a plagiarism filter, which as I mentioned before, was unlikely.  The situation was succinctly summarised by a member of staff at Sussex University:

             ”You will understand, however, that it is almost impossible for Universities to proof such cases although I’m sure it’s a common form of academic fraud. I cannot promise we can pin down the candidate should s/he really submit a “personalised” piece of work.”

I have no doubt that these writing services are the academic black market of the digital age and a blight on the credibility of higher education. They detract from the hard work being done by honest students and the fraudsters they benefit will carry their incompetence and propensity for corruption to the next stage of their now tarnished education, and eventually their careers too, any success in which will be borne of a lie. What concerns me most are submissions from the health, engineering or architectural sectors; these are professionals entrusted with the lives of others, either through direct medical intervention or via the construction of sound buildings and bridges. If they cheat their way through their education, how can they expect to become competent professionals in the future? Their careers, and qualifications, are built on a foundation of corruption and lies, at the root of which are these abhorrent and objectionable writing services.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

If you, or someone you know, has had experience with one of these services, please contact me at admin@andrewrushby.com. Your anonymity is guaranteed.

Article first published as Moving Towards a Science-Based Drug Policy on Technorati.

The government is responsible for formulating a drug policy that protects both the health of its citizen’s and its delicate societal fabric from harm. The policy is enforced by the police and upheld by the courts via custodial sentences and rehabilitation. It is in the best interests of the government to therefore base the policy on scientific or sociological evidence to ensure consistency and transparency which in turn would be represented by an improvement in the health and well-being of the people. When scientists and medical experts report that  new evidence no longer supports the government’s position, it is expected that the policy should be changed to reflect the facts. Everyone’s a winner; the government can use science to formulate their policies accordingly and have irrefutable statistical and medical evidence to back-up their decisions, whilst citizens are protected from harm and addiction. Representative and democratic. Unfortunately, as with many decisions regarding politically sensitive topics, ideology and the ability to secure votes often trumps the science and this leads to inconsistencies within the policy making it more difficult to defend and police as well as ripe for judicial review and further scientific scrutiny.

Let us postulate that two new drugs have been formulated and they need to be assessed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to decide whether the evidence suggests that they should be legal for use or criminalised. Drug A is a powerful anaesthetic and depressant with damaging side effects and high toxicity, a strong potential for addiction and overdose, as well as a verifiable record of violent, risk taking and socially damaging behaviour. Drug C is a mild hallucinogenic and depressant with no recorded instances of overdose and very low toxicity, little or no propensity towards physical addiction or violent behaviour, as well as several scientifically validated medicinal uses. It seems like a straightforward decision. These two drugs do in fact exist and their appropriate legislative positions are opposite to what may be expected. Drug A is alcohol; legal, popular and often cited as a corner-stone of UK culture, whilst drug C is cannabis; illegal but still popular despite the possibility of a custodial sentence or rehabilitation programme for its possession and cultivation.

Cannabis. It’s a controversial topic, and one seldom addressed by UK politicians despite their individual propensity towards it’s use. It’s the UK’s most popular illegal recreational vice and is currently categorised as a class-B drug, along with amphetamines and other stimulants, and possession of even small quantities of cannabis can result in a 5-year prison sentence or an unlimited fine or both. Based on the severity of the government’s stance towards cannabis, one naturally assumes that it must be a physically, psychologically and societally harmful drug deserving of this level of strict policing and custodial enforcement. Over the last few years however, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this may not necessarily be the case and many claims about the deleterious affects of smoked or ingested cannabis do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. The juxtaposition between the evidence and the current policy suggests that legislation regarding the recreational use of this substance may be dictated not by science, as it should be, but rather by the political machination of successive governments in the UK and abroad.

The cannabis plant and the biochemistry of the psychoactive compounds it produces are well studied. The main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a secondary metabolite of the cannabis genus of flowering plants, which includes the species cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, and cannabis ruderalis. THC is thought to have evolved as a defence against herbivorous animals, or as a form of protection against harmful UV-B rays from the strong tropical sun throughout its native range of Central and South Asia. The mature flowers of the female plant contain abundant glandular trichomes (see image) that secrete dozens of organic cannabinoids, including THC, and these structures are normally dried and then smoked, vapourised or eaten.

Evidence alluding to the ancient use of smoked cannabis as a sacrament in ritual or religious ceremonies, as well as the use of hemp – a versatile material made from the fibrous stems and stalks of the plants – for clothing and paper, has been found across Asia and the Middle East. The most ancient record of cannabis use is documented by tablets found in Assyria, northern Iraq today, dating to the 7th century BC, but archaeological evidence reveals that it was probably in use for many hundreds of years before. Cannabis remains part of several modern-day religions, including Hinduism, Rastafarianism and contemporary and ancient African religions such as the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church. ‘Magic’ hallucinogenic psilocybe mushrooms may have also been used as entheogens as far back as 6000 years ago.

THC laden granular trichomes visible on the surface of the flower of the female Cannabis plant.

Regardless of its sacramental use in religion, which could act to further enforce any reservations non-religious people may have on the legalisation of the drug, cannabis is used recreationally by millions of people from many backgrounds, including the sciences. Cannabis’ international fan-base formerly included respected cosmologist Carl Sagan, one of my scientific heroes, who anonymously authored an essay detailing his positive personal experiences of cannabis use. Sagan’s second wife Ann Druyan is a campaigner for the reform of marijuana laws in the US. Renowned evolutionary biologist Stephan Jay Gould was an advocate for the use of medical marijuana and claimed that the drug eased the chemotherapy-induced nausea associated with his 20-year battle against lung cancer.

It would appear that cannabis has a following amongst scientists because when objectively scrutinised it appears to be an extremely safe recreational drug, especially when compared to legal alternatives such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Pharmacologist Professor David Nutt resigned from his position as head of the UK government’s drug advisory panel (ACMD) after instigating a political furore by noting that medical science suggests that LSD, ecstasy and cannabis pose much less of a risk to individual users, and society at large, than alcohol or tobacco. It would appear that his successor is likely to agree with his position. Given the evidence, it is difficult to disagree. It is obvious that inhaling smoke of any kind is likely to cause damage to the lungs, but it should be noted that cannabis smoke is known to contain markedly fewer carcinogens than that of tobacco. Personal experiences of cannabis intoxication may be differ between regular users and occasional smokers with heavy doses possibly resulting in nausea, anxiety and paranoia. It is however physically impossible to overdose on cannabis due to its remarkably low toxicity and there have been no recorded cases of any deaths linked solely to excessive cannabis consumption. There is also a temptation to associate cannabis use with loss of motivation, psychiatric problems and cognitive degeneration, but the science simply doesn’t reflect this perception. An increasing amount of evidence seems to suggest that cannabis has several beneficial properties, from appetite stimulation to sleep modulation, as an analgesic and and for treating glaucoma, amongst others.

Why does alcohol and tobacco remain legal whilst mountains of legitimate, scientific evidence suggests that cannabis, magic mushrooms and ecstasy are almost certainly less harmful. Legalising cannabis, for example, would most likely reduce its use (table 2) and eliminate the possibility of  it acting as a ‘gateway drug’. The key to the gateway is very much in the possession of the supplier as opposed to the buyer. Legalisation severs the supply chain that fosters this association and in so doing serves to board up the gateway and throw away the key, providing the gateway existed in the first place (paragraph 52 and 53). This progressive approach also removes the responsibility of the supply of the drug from the black market, where it is unregulated, its quality variable and toxic adulterants rife, to that of a regulated public or private institution where use can be monitored and its sale regulated, potential addiction addressed whilst also being heavily taxed for additional income.

In choosing to ignore the evidence of experts the government is setting a dangerous precedent. It is important to at all times make rational, informed and objective judgements when navigating the muddy waters of governance; basing your policies on substantial, easily defended evidence is a sure-fire way to ensure that they have added depth and consistency beyond shallow ideology and will stand up well to criticism and analysis. It’s difficult to write about cannabis, or drugs in general, without appearing biased. Although I have used the example of cannabis in this article, the same applies for a number of other recreational drugs that have been proven to be safer than it was initially thought. The subject is very polarising, and the direction of the schism seems to run parallel to the left-right orientation of the traditional political spectrum. It is for this reason that emotive politics should be left by the wayside and the lens of drug policy focussed instead by science.