University rescinds honorary degree awarded to Konrad Lorenz

Posted 18 December 2015 by Matt Young

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday that the University of Salzburg has posthumously rescinded an honorary doctorate it had awarded to the ethologist Konrad Lorenz because of what Haaretz called "his fervent embrace of Nazism." Some people consider Lorenz, the man who famously got a gaggle of geese to imprint on him, to be the father of ethology. Haaretz says,

Lorenz describes himself as "always a National Socialist." He says his work "stands to serve National Socialist thought." The university says Lorenz spread "basic elements of the racist ideology of National Socialism" in his work.

The Wikipedia article on Lorenz says,

Lorenz joined the Nazi Party in 1938 and accepted a university chair under the Nazi regime. In his application for membership of the Nazi Party he wrote in 1938: "I'm able to say that my whole scientific work is devoted to the ideas of the National Socialists." His publications during that time led in later years to allegations that his scientific work had been contaminated by Nazi sympathies. His published writing during the Nazi period included support for Nazi ideas of "racial hygiene" couched in pseudoscientific metaphors. After the war Lorenz long denied having been a party member until his membership request turned up, and he also denied having known about the extent of the genocide in spite of having held a post as a psychologist in the Office of Racial Policy. He also denied having ever held antisemitic views, but was later shown to have used frequent antisemitic language in a series of letters to his mentor Heinroth. In his biography he wrote: "I was frightened--as I still am--by the thought that analogous genetical processes of deterioration may be at work with civilized humanity. Moved by this fear, I did a very ill-advised thing soon after the Germans had invaded Austria: I wrote about the dangers of domestication and, in order to be understood, I couched my writing in the worst of nazi terminology. I do not want to extenuate this action. I did, indeed, believe that some good might come of the new rulers. The precedent narrow-minded catholic regime in Austria induced better and more intelligent men than I was to cherish this naive hope. Practically all my friends and teachers did so, including my own father who certainly was a kindly and humane man. None of us as much as suspected that the word "selection", when used by these rulers, meant murder. I regret those writings not so much for the undeniable discredit they reflect on my person as for their effect of hampering the future recognition of the dangers of domestication."

Lorenz, who has been dead for 26 years, shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

13 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/yCTZpzcvy5VbV7c0LbBGC2F26tKI#9a762 · 18 December 2015

(insert 'joke' about goose-stepping here.)

DS · 18 December 2015

Really? Posthumously rescinding an honorary doctorate! What a bold step. And of course his political views were probably well known at the time they gave him the degree and had nothing whatsoever to do with his actual scientific accomplishments. Now he won't be able to enjoy the benefits of that honorary degree. The horror.

Certain individuals, who shall remain nameless, actually hid their beliefs and motivations, obtained real doctorates in science and then proceeded to use those degrees not to do science but to gain respectability and use that to denigrate science. Now those are the guys who should have their degrees rescinded. And why wait until after they are dead to do it?

Matt Young · 18 December 2015

I do not know when the degree was awarded, but Lorenz denied having been a Nazi until his application was revealed, according to Wikipedia. Rescinding the degree may be a part of Austria's finally coming to terms with its Nazi past and is therefore not irrelevant but symbolic. As to the cranks who use their degrees to subvert science, I have no comment, only contempt.

eric · 18 December 2015

Matt Young said: Rescinding the degree may be a part of Austria's finally coming to terms with its Nazi past and is therefore not irrelevant but symbolic.

Yeah but even as a symbolic gesture it appears ham-handed. They basically just created a Streisand effect; bringing public attention and interest to a historical person they were trying to downplay. Don't fix what ain't broke. I'd say that as a general rule of thumb, if you think someone's Nazi past is a reason they should fade into obscurity, and they've already faded from public view (albeit not from biologists' view), don't dredge them back up just to beat on their reputation, you'll only make your situation worse.

DS · 18 December 2015

Well some may think it too extreme to deny a degree to someone who has fulfilled the requirements. But, let me remind you that the degree in question is a Doctor of Philosophy Degree. Now if you think that "god dod it" is a legitimate cause for a physical phenomena, or you think that methodological naturalism is not a valid way to investigate nature,, then I would submit that you missed one too many classes and have failed to achieve even a minimal competence in your chosen field.

Cue creationist trolls trying to equate Darwin with Hitler once again.

harold · 18 December 2015

Matt Young said: I do not know when the degree was awarded, but Lorenz denied having been a Nazi until his application was revealed, according to Wikipedia. Rescinding the degree may be a part of Austria's finally coming to terms with its Nazi past and is therefore not irrelevant but symbolic. As to the cranks who use their degrees to subvert science, I have no comment, only contempt.

The problem of condemning Nazi collaborators while acknowledging and building on their legitimate achievements is an issue in medicine as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_eponyms_with_Nazi_associations Some of these eponyms, for example Wegener's and Reiter's, are extremely well established and almost impossible to get rid of; generations of physicians were trained using them. The problems in medical science run deeper than the problems with Lorenz, too. Lorenz worked with geese and herring gulls, and, toward geese and herring gulls, my understanding is that he was not even terribly inhumane in his approach. The medical work involved humans. Part of the problem is the level to which Nazism penetrated German society. A party with an extreme authoritarian, nationalist, racist, war-mongering ideology, which pandered to marginal and violent elements of society, was perceived as a mainstream political organization. I think denying or reversing purely symbolic honorary degrees and awards is an excellent approach. Lorenz did incredibly important work, as did Wegener, Reiter, etc. What they did was legal in the jurisdiction where they did it (again, with Lorenz, his scientific work may well have met or come close to meeting contemporary standards for ethical research, which is pointedly not the case in the medical examples). He was granted recognition for his work during his lifetime, and his work remains important for some scientific fields. But personal factors can be considered when symbolic awards are considered.

Joe Felsenstein · 18 December 2015

It should be noted that the "Wegener" mentioned above was not Alfred Wegener, the pioneer of continental drift. He died in 1930.

Michael Fugate · 18 December 2015

Maybe universities should stop giving honorary doctorates. Unless you are Ben Carson and use them to decorate your house, what good are they?

harold · 18 December 2015

Joe Felsenstein said: It should be noted that the "Wegener" mentioned above was not Alfred Wegener, the pioneer of continental drift. He died in 1930.

Correct, it was Friedrich Wegener the pathologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wegener (1907-1990). They don't seem to have been closely related.

Matt Young · 18 December 2015

Well some may think it too extreme to deny a degree to someone who has fulfilled the requirements.

They revoked the degree of Jan Hendrik SchÃ¶n for falsifying data. I do not know whether hawking pseudoscience is any better, but it is unfortunately harder to prove. (Sorry, but PT might not let you see an o with an umlaut (diaeresis), though it shows up correctly in the draft box.)

harold · 19 December 2015

Matt Young said:
Well some may think it too extreme to deny a degree to someone who has fulfilled the requirements.
They revoked the degree of Jan Hendrik SchÃ¶n for falsifying data. I do not know whether hawking pseudoscience is any better, but it is unfortunately harder to prove. (Sorry, but PT might not let you see an o with an umlaut (diaeresis), though it shows up correctly in the draft box.)

Falsifying data or cheating in any way should generally result in denying or revoking a degree, or maybe in rare cases where there are extenuating circumstances allowing the person to continue after discipline, but denying credit for all work associated with the cheating. Because they literally didn't complete that requirement. During pursuit of a degree students are judged and tested, but only until they have met the requirements of the degree. I've expressed my extreme scorn for the deeply dishonest activity of forcing oneself through a science degree for the sake of a false claim that the credentials make asinine science denial better many times, but if they earned the degree, they earned the degree. Taken to its logical extension, what about high school diplomas and undergraduate degrees? What about the many activities that are massively worse than being a creationist? This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a valid question. If a graduate degree should be revoked merely for the legal activity of producing stupid bullshit, how do we decide the boundaries of "degree revoking worthy activity"? The testing ends when the degree is granted. If some science denying jerk has a science degree, he or she has a degree, and it does demonstrate that he or she had the ability to get the degree. Your ability to test their worthiness ended when you gave them the degree. In medicine, state license to practice can be revoked, and indeed, has to be maintained with effort, but it's extremely rare to try to revoke the degree.

SLC · 22 December 2015

How about if the PhD was fraudulently obtained, re. Jonathan Wells?

harold said:
Matt Young said:
Well some may think it too extreme to deny a degree to someone who has fulfilled the requirements.
They revoked the degree of Jan Hendrik SchÃ¶n for falsifying data. I do not know whether hawking pseudoscience is any better, but it is unfortunately harder to prove. (Sorry, but PT might not let you see an o with an umlaut (diaeresis), though it shows up correctly in the draft box.)
Falsifying data or cheating in any way should generally result in denying or revoking a degree, or maybe in rare cases where there are extenuating circumstances allowing the person to continue after discipline, but denying credit for all work associated with the cheating. Because they literally didn't complete that requirement. During pursuit of a degree students are judged and tested, but only until they have met the requirements of the degree. I've expressed my extreme scorn for the deeply dishonest activity of forcing oneself through a science degree for the sake of a false claim that the credentials make asinine science denial better many times, but if they earned the degree, they earned the degree. Taken to its logical extension, what about high school diplomas and undergraduate degrees? What about the many activities that are massively worse than being a creationist? This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a valid question. If a graduate degree should be revoked merely for the legal activity of producing stupid bullshit, how do we decide the boundaries of "degree revoking worthy activity"? The testing ends when the degree is granted. If some science denying jerk has a science degree, he or she has a degree, and it does demonstrate that he or she had the ability to get the degree. Your ability to test their worthiness ended when you gave them the degree. In medicine, state license to practice can be revoked, and indeed, has to be maintained with effort, but it's extremely rare to try to revoke the degree.

SLC · 22 December 2015

It's also an issue in physics. Nobel Prize winners Johannes Stark and Philip Lenard were both Nazis. However, the fact that Stark was a Nazi has no effect as to whether the Stark effect is a real phenomena.

harold said:
Matt Young said: I do not know when the degree was awarded, but Lorenz denied having been a Nazi until his application was revealed, according to Wikipedia. Rescinding the degree may be a part of Austria's finally coming to terms with its Nazi past and is therefore not irrelevant but symbolic. As to the cranks who use their degrees to subvert science, I have no comment, only contempt.
The problem of condemning Nazi collaborators while acknowledging and building on their legitimate achievements is an issue in medicine as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_eponyms_with_Nazi_associations Some of these eponyms, for example Wegener's and Reiter's, are extremely well established and almost impossible to get rid of; generations of physicians were trained using them. The problems in medical science run deeper than the problems with Lorenz, too. Lorenz worked with geese and herring gulls, and, toward geese and herring gulls, my understanding is that he was not even terribly inhumane in his approach. The medical work involved humans. Part of the problem is the level to which Nazism penetrated German society. A party with an extreme authoritarian, nationalist, racist, war-mongering ideology, which pandered to marginal and violent elements of society, was perceived as a mainstream political organization. I think denying or reversing purely symbolic honorary degrees and awards is an excellent approach. Lorenz did incredibly important work, as did Wegener, Reiter, etc. What they did was legal in the jurisdiction where they did it (again, with Lorenz, his scientific work may well have met or come close to meeting contemporary standards for ethical research, which is pointedly not the case in the medical examples). He was granted recognition for his work during his lifetime, and his work remains important for some scientific fields. But personal factors can be considered when symbolic awards are considered.