Open Access, Closed Ethics: How ‘Cures’ Movements Exploit Science
At the Dark Intersection of Open Access Journals and Eugenic Ideologies
Every now and then, I come across an article in my inbox that stops me in my tracks—not for its groundbreaking insights, but for its audacious lack of substance. Such was the case with a recent piece in one of the SpEd journals I subscribe to, a publication that usually delivers legit developments in the field. This time, however, it served up a “landmark study” linking air pollution to autism, sourced from SciTechDaily.
The headline was as bold as it was dubious: Landmark Study Links Common Air Pollutants to Autism. Intrigued (and admittedly skeptical), I clicked through, expecting to find rigorous research that might contribute to meaningful dialogue about environmental factors and neurodevelopment. Instead, I found what could only be described as a thinly veiled marketing piece for an biotech company, complete with sweeping claims, dramatic language, and enough buzzwords to power a Silicon Valley conference.
This “study,” authored by individuals with direct ties to Israeli biotech firms NeuroNOS and Point6 Bio, conveniently aligned with their business focus: manipulating nitric oxide pathways to address autism. The framing was clear—autism was once again reduced to a problem to be fixed, with air pollution cast as a boogeyman and nitric oxide signaling offered as the hero. The connections between the study, its authors’ affiliations, and their business models were as glaring as they were troubling.
Even more concerning was the platform that delivered this piece. As educators, we rely on professional journals to present us with unbiased research that enhances our understanding of the students we serve. For such a publication to platform what amounts to corporate propaganda disguised as science feels like a breach of trust—and a stark reminder of how commercial interests can infiltrate even our most trusted spaces.
What follows is a satirical take on the absurdity of this “landmark study,” followed by a serious critique of the ethical and systemic issues it represents. Let’s dig in.
Landmark Study Links Air Pollution to Autism, Lab Director Regrets Leaving Perm
By Totally Legit Science Review
November 29, 2024
3 Mins Read
When Dr Yevgeny Yakubov, a molecular biology lab director who once braved Siberian winters in Perm, signed up as a peer reviewer for Brain Medicine, he thought he’d be contributing to the frontiers of neuroscience. Instead, he found himself staring at a manuscript that read like a rejected Cracked article.
“This can’t be real,” Yakubov muttered, sipping tea from his I ❤️ Perm mug. “I moved halfway across the world, traded pelmeni for bagels, and sat through grant meetings in Boston—only to end up reviewing this çüp?”
A “Landmark Study” That’s More Fiction Than Science
The paper in question, titled Air pollution: an emerging risk factor for autism spectrum disorder, claimed to uncover the definitive link between fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and autism. Yakubov scrolled through the introduction, which boldly stated that “nitrosative stress” and “epigenetic chaos” were the “missing keys to understanding autism.”
“My first thought was, ‘What’s next? Is carbon monoxide responsible for bad hair days?’” Yakubov said.
Authored by a PhD student who Yakubov suspected got their degree from “YouTube University,” the study leaned heavily on citations from sources like Wikipedia, Instagram infographics, and something ominously titled Science for Busy Moms.
Data, or the Lack Thereof
The evidence presented included:
A bar graph with no axis labels.
A flowchart linking air pollution to “societal despair” via “molecular vibes.”
A single mouse study where the researchers “exposed” mice to nitrogen oxides by lighting scented candles in their cage.
The methods section? Yakubov described it as “a beautifully crafted word salad.”
“Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen bad science before,” Yakubov said. “But this… This made me nostalgic for the random diafilm presentations I’d get from undergrads in Perm.”
Peer Review or Performance Art?
Yakubov did his due diligence and looked up the journal itself. He quickly discovered that Brain Medicine was an open-access startup run out of someone’s garage (probably). Its tagline—Disrupting Science, One Paper at a Time—suddenly made sense.
“Disrupting? More like dismantling,” Yakubov grumbled. “This isn’t peer review. This is peer relief—relief that I’m not the one who wrote this mess.”
As Yakubov tried to take the manuscript seriously, he came across a gem in the conclusion: “Thus, we propose that air pollution not only causes autism but may also hold the secret to reversing climate change.”
“I swear, I thought I was hallucinating. This is what happens when you trade Perm’s clean air for city smog,” Yakubov lamented.
An Existential Crisis in the Making
Yakubov emailed the journal editor to politely decline the review, citing “a sudden need to reevaluate his career.” Moments later, he received a reply thanking him for his “constructive feedback” and offering him a permanent spot on their editorial board.
“I left Perm for this?” Yakubov asked his cat, who looked unimpressed. “I should have stayed and opened a bakery.”
Meanwhile, in the Author’s Corner…
The authors of the paper remain undeterred. “This is just the beginning,” one of them declared on Twitter. “Next, we’re linking air pollution to telepathy—and maybe time travel.”
As for Yakubov, he has officially unregistered as a peer reviewer and is considering writing a memoir titled From Perm to Pandemonium: My Life in Science Publishing. He plans to dedicate it to the people of Perm, who never asked for any of this.
But Seriously …
Whilst satire helps illuminate the absurdities of scientific posturing, the deeper issues raised by the original article and associated marketing piece are no laughing matter. It’s essential to critically examine not just the study itself, but the commercial ecosystem and ethical landscape that enable such publications to thrive.
A Commercial "Study" in Disguise
The article in question aligns almost too perfectly with the business models of NeuroNOS and Point6 Bio, two Israeli biotech companies directly linked to Haitham Amal, one of the study’s authors. Both companies focus on nitric oxide’s “role” in “neurological disorders,” including autism, and their “therapeutic strategies” involve manipulating this molecule. The study’s claims that detecting disruptions in nitric oxide signaling pathways conveniently serve as marketing fodder for these businesses. Whilst the article explicitly states no funds from these companies supported the research, the overlap in focus is hard to ignore.
A Broader Business Model at Play
This isn’t just about one article. It reflects a growing trend in which scientific studies become quasi-commercial materials, strategically crafted to attract attention to products, attract funding, or legitimise experimental therapies. Companies like NeuroNOS don’t need direct advertising when they can co-opt the veneer of academic research to advance their agendas. Articles like this create a feedback loop: they generate hype, reinforce the company’s perceived expertise, and secure more funding, all whilst remaining ostensibly independent of direct marketing.
Israel’s Role in Eugenic Research
The study underscores deeply troubling concerns about Israel’s role in fostering biotech and genetic research that carries disturbing echoes of eugenics. Framing autism as something to “cure” or “reverse” perpetuates the dehumanising idea that neurodivergence is a defect requiring elimination. It is especially egregious that such research is being pursued in a country whose history is indelibly marked by the Holocaust, where Aktion T4—the Nazi program targeting disabled people—served as a precursor to industrialised genocide. For Israel to allow lines of inquiry that commodify neurodivergence and implicitly suggest the erasure of autistic individuals is a betrayal of the memory of those atrocities. This approach risks perpetuating the same logic of worth and “fitness” that underpinned some of history’s darkest acts, prioritising profit and pseudoscientific “solutions” over ethical consideration and respect for neurodiverse lives.
The Pay-to-Publish Problem
Compounding these issues is the rise of pay-to-publish journals, which lower the barrier to entry for questionable research. These journals often lack rigorous peer-review processes, allowing studies like this one to be published with minimal scrutiny. Whilst they can serve an important role in providing access to emerging researchers, they can also enable the proliferation of dubious claims dressed up as “landmark” findings.
Final thoughts …
The intersection of for-profit science, ethical grey areas, and lax publication standards creates fertile ground for studies that serve corporate interests rather than advancing unbiased knowledge. This is not just about the questionable ethics of commercialised research; it’s about how these studies are weaponised to manipulate public perception and policy. The odds ratio—or “risk”—narrative is a key tool in this arsenal. By framing findings in terms of heightened “risk,” these publications tap into fear-based rhetoric, enticing readers and investors alike to buy into their agenda. Autism, once again, is cast as a spectre to be avoided at all costs, rather than a natural and valid part of human diversity.
This approach has become the hallmark of the so-called “cures” movement, which relies on questionable “science” to justify its existence. By attaching labels like “research-based” or “evidence-based” to their work—often with minimal scrutiny—they create a facade of legitimacy. Pay-to-publish journals, operating under the guise of “open access,” exploit the term’s promise of increased accessibility to knowledge. In reality, “open access” often means authors must pay steep fees to have their work published, turning journals into profit-driven enterprises. This model allows capitalists to bypass traditional gatekeepers in science, gaining easy entry into the academic journal space without adhering to the rigorous standards of peer review.
Far from democratising information, this system undermines the credibility of research by lowering the bar for publication. The resulting papers, many lacking in substance or integrity, then become the foundation for products, “therapies,” and narratives that dehumanise autistic individuals and perpetuate eugenic ideologies. All of this is cloaked in the deceptive language of academic credibility, enabling these movements to thrive under the appearance of scientific validity.
Meanwhile, a parallel infrastructure for research that actually helps autistic people is glaringly absent. There is no equivalent paper mill churning out accessible, evidence-backed insights to expand services, improve care, or address the structural barriers autistic individuals face daily. Instead, the burden of advocacy and research falls disproportionately on the autistic community and its allies, often without the resources or platforms afforded to corporate-backed efforts. It seems absurdly easier—and cheaper—to get a dubious paper published in one of these journals than it is to secure an autism diagnosis in the UK or the USA.
This system perpetuates inequality, enabling corporations to advance profit-driven agendas while autistic individuals continue to struggle for recognition, understanding, and support. Protecting the integrity of science means more than exposing these practices; it requires a systemic overhaul of how research is funded, published, and valued. It is time to advocate not just for stricter oversight in scientific publishing, but for a shift in priorities—away from profit and fearmongering, and toward genuine efforts to improve the lives of autistic people.