Public outrage on Twitter (or X, if you must) can be both an instrument of cancellation and a useful tool for holding public bodies to account. When one academic published the code of conduct for an upcoming European Social Sciences Genetics Network (ESSGN) conference on the platform, many people expressed outrage. In the face of this backlash, the organisers admitted that they had made a mistake, saying that they now “regret” the original language of the code.
Damien Morris, a PhD student in the field of behavioural genetics, recently tried to apply for a spot on the programme for the fourth annual conference of the European Social Sciences Genetics Network (ESSGN). Specifically, he submitted a presentation on “how philosophical & political prejudices downplay genetic influence on human behaviour & draw illiberal & coercive policy conclusions from research findings” in the field.
The ESSGN conference will be held in May at the University of Bristol, and officially aims to “improve our understanding of how genetic endowments and environmental circumstances shape life choices and outcomes”. It features a wide range of discussions and talks, including on the topics of “Genetic Endowments and Lifetime Earnings”, “Genetic Inequalities and Public Policy”, and the “Intergenerational Study of Genetics and Entrepreneurship”.
Morris’ proposed talk would seemingly have fitted well into this programme. Yet, his application never got very far as the procedure required him to sign a Code of Conduct demanding a commitment to several ethical and political principles. These were:
- Scientific Integrity: We reject all pseudo-scientific claims that seek to misuse science and genetics to justify discrimination and/or oppression.
- Ethical Research and Opposition to Eugenics: We commit to conducting genetics research respect human dignity, avoids harm, and does not reinforce social hierarchies or biases. We reject eugenic ideology in all its forms.
- Non-medical Embryo Selection: We oppose the use of genetic technologies for non-medical embryo selection or any form of reproductive decision-making aimed at enhancing social traits.
- Public Responsibility: We engage with policymakers, educators, and the public to prevent the misinterpretation of genetic research and counter its exploitation by extremist ideologies.
- Diversity and Inclusion: We advocate for equitable representation in genetic research and strive for our work to contribute to the well-being of all members of society.
Morris did not feel that he could honestly put his name to these principles, but nevertheless wanted to participate in the conference. He therefore wrote to the conference organisers, expressing his concern about the “ideological conformity” demanded by the Code.
In his letter, Morris pointed out that depending on the definition of “eugenic” research, “most social science genetics would be disqualified by principle 2, including research by many of those already listed on the conference programme”. Moreover, he contended that complete opposition to non-medical embryo selection would bar several leading bioethicists, such as Julian Savulescu and Peter Singer, from attending.
Besides these points, principle 2 clearly goes too far when it demands that academics commit to not conducting any genetics research that “reinforces social hierarchies”. First, researchers should be free to conduct any research they like, regardless of how it impacts on the structure of society. More importantly, most academics do not – and cannot possibly – know the result of their research, nor how it will impact “social hierarchies”, before they actually conduct it. Any commitments to a particular set of results are fundamentally unscientific.
Damien Morris expressed his concerns in the email and asked the organisers to accept his application, even without his signature to the Code of Conduct. However, the reply was short and impersonal, stating merely that “the ESSGN board agreed and approved the statement of principles […] as a prerequisite for participation” and asked Morris to “please understand that we cannot exempt people from agreed policies on a case-by-case basis.”
Understandably dismayed by this response, Morris took to X and posted both his own email and the reply from ESSGN. His post explained how he had been refused participation “because, as a matter of conscience, I refused to sign their ethically and politically contentious statement of principles”, adding that “I guess freedom of conscience does not exist in social science genetics 2025”.
The post received a lot of attention, being viewed close to 70,000 times within 24 hours, and a backlash against the ESSGN soon followed. Somewhat surprisingly, it did not take long for ESSGN to backtrack and issue something close to an apology. In a post on X, it wrote that the code of conduct was merely “an early internal draft that was prepared somewhat hastily” and that “[i]n retrospect, asking attendees to sign it was premature and has understandably raised concerns”.
A subsequent post explained that the organisation “obviously value[s] open and rigorous exchange, and we regret that this was not clearer”. The ESSGN also stated that the code had now “gone through several revisions” based on “feedback from our members”, and promised to now take “time to reconsider whether it’s appropriate to ask conference participants to sign it in the future”.
This response is clearly disingenuous. It is difficult to see how the statement of principles could be both an official requirement for attendees of the conference and also just “an early internal draft”. It may have been early, and perhaps even a draft, but it certainly was not only internal. Indeed, it has hard to imagine that the ESSGN would have changed its policy but for the public backlash. The initial response to Morris claimed that the Code had been “agreed and approved” as a “prerequisite for participation” by the “ESSGN board”.
Nonetheless, it is a good thing that the ESSGN proved relatively responsive to public criticism and is now reconsidering such policies for the future.
For Damien Morris, however, and anyone else who felt unable to sign the listed principles, the ESSGN response is too little, too late. The conference programme is set and no new applications are being accepted at this point. We may hope that next year’s conference will give more weight to academic freedom than ideological conformity.
As Morris wrote in his email to ESSGN: “These conferences should be a place where informed scholars from relevant fields can debate what constitutes (un)ethical research in social science genetics and what constitutes the misrepresentation of that research rather than prejudging the answers to those questions in advance.”