Qatar’s Bioethics Meeting

This article refers to:

Proposed Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing: Anti-Discriminatory, Global, and Inclusive

What is the purpose of a large academic meeting attended by hundreds or thousands of participants? What are the reasons, given current virtual conferencing technology, to hold such meetings in person? Although there are often high-minded justifications for both, I suspect that the real motivations for many attendees are complex and multifaceted. Exploration of these reasons is worth considering before tackling the ethical dimensions of choice of venue.

First, in person meetings are often opportunities for revenue generation by professional societies. Indeed, the ability to make money from conferences has led to an explosion of predatory conferences. Even legitimate professional societies often depend on the revenue generated from meetings.

Second, as attendees, we want to travel to new, interesting, or nice places. If we are honest with ourselves, conferences are too often boondoggles that allow (mostly highly resourced) academics and medical professionals to have free vacations and hang out with friends from other institutions. For some of us, they are a chance to enjoy nice restaurants in different locations. David Lodge’s academic novel “Small Worlds” is about elite academics in Comparative Literature and English traveling around the world and enjoying themselves. Bioethics summer camp was a clear expression of this idea as it rotated for many years between sea and mountain resorts with very light programs.

A related, but important reason for attending meetings is to catch up with friends and former students and colleagues (or former mentors). They are also occasions to meet new people, often through introductions from our friends. Thus, these meetings are important social spaces for creating and maintaining professional social networks and for introducing the next generation into these networks. There is also the “exchange of ideas,” typically touted as the reason for meetings, but that aspect of conferences can be accomplished just as easily virtually as through in person meetings. And while there may be informal exchanges of ideas occurring outside of sessions, I am skeptical that the social aspects of networking are closely linked to the exchange of ideas rather than other aspects of socialization (and this view is supported by at least some social science research that studies student attendance at professional meetings).

To the extent that the primary purpose of in person meetings is to build and maintain professional social networks, then critical questions can be raised about the extent to which this really meets any high-minded ideals of openness or access. Trainees and younger scholars who are already placed at prestigious academic institutions will disproportionately benefit from continuing to expand their networks, while those who are less resourced may struggle to benefit from the many informal networking benefits of in person meetings. When added to the differential in resources to attend, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that one of the important functions of in person meetings is to continue the social hierarchies that constitute current academic life so that those of us at highly regarded and highly resourced institutions can ensure the maintenance of the status quo and to pass that on to our intellectual heirs (trainees). In short, conferences are ways to have fun while reinforcing the academic caste system.

From this perspective, many of the justifications for holding the IAB meeting in Qatar provided by Jecker and colleagues (2024) ring hollow. While I respect and appreciate efforts that leaders of organizations like ASBH and IAB to try to mitigate the inequity inherent in these meetings, through travel funds and formal, structured events that allow junior scholars at less resourced institutions to interact with prominent faculty, it is difficult to see how these meetings are going to lead to the sort of improvements in epistemic injustice touted by the authors compared to hosting virtual meetings.

If we take for granted that there will be an in-person meeting, other questions are raised that the Target Article addresses. What values should govern the choice of venue for meetings, particularly international meetings? Was Qatar an appropriate choice?

The Dobbs decision resulted in the loss of reproductive rights for women in many states and comes as state laws are passed that have placed restrictions on transgender care. When PRIM&R was scheduled to have an in-person meeting in Salt Lake City, a location that had a law forbidding abortion already on the books, and anti-LGBTQ policies, they decided to cancel the in-person meeting in favor of a zoom meeting. There are two distinct lines of reasoning that were offered to support this view. First, as Eliza Hurley, then the Executive Director of PRIM&R argued in a letter she sent to members, is that these policies and laws “are discriminatory and antithetical to PRIM&R’s values as an ethics organization.” Second, there is concern about the potential impact on the health and well-being of members who attend. It is possible that PRIM&R members in attendance might need healthcare that they would not be able to receive because of these policies and laws while in attendance.

Each of these points are made in the OPC’s that are critical of the choice of Qatar as a location for the meeting. Ozisik, Dellgren, and Emanuel are particularly on point for the second concern. Any location that raises significant safety concerns for its members should not be chosen as a venue. The first point highlights that the values reflected in the choice of venue can be hurtful and discriminatory. Homosexuality and transgender identity are unlawful in the venue that was chosen. It is difficult to get past this basic fact. The FAQ’s from the IAB state that “Participants who choose to use the opportunity of attending a Congress to tour Qatar or the Gulf region are solely responsible for their own health and safety. The IAB recommends heeding local cultural norms related to dress code, food, interpersonal relationships, etc., as they would as visitors in any other country.” This means that individuals who are LGBTQ are at risk if they leave the immediate location of conference or act as themselves. They are setting up the meeting as a hybrid meeting so that LGBTQ individuals can attend virtually. But this means that the primary benefits of an in-person meeting described above, are functionally not available to LGBTQ members.

A colleague pointed out to me that in addition, the conflicting values between Qatar and any bioethics group, include the lack of basic rights to women, over and above reproductive rights that are denied in some U.S. states. The Human Rights Watch (2023) Report on Qatar (https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/qatar#d91ede) describes the discriminatory rules that require guardianships for women, restrict their ability to travel, and make reporting of rape a crime for the victim (for non-marital sex).

The defenders of the choice of venue argue that an important distinction should be made between the government of Qatar and the local institution that is playing host. But is there as sharp a line between the government of Qatar and the local sponsor as this suggests?

Qatar is well-known for its efforts at influence-peddling in the EU and the U.S. This has led to scandals as officials in the EU such as Eva Kaili (a VP of the European Parliament) and member Pier Antonio Panzeri were arrested on bribery charges. As bribery investigations were underway, Qatar warned the EU that the investigation could threaten negotiations for natural gas that would be needed to replace Russian sources (Cloud 2022). In the U.S., Senator Bob Menendez has been accused of corruption by accepting bribes from Qatar. Smith’s (2020) edition of Tablet Magazine explores, “Qatar’s State-of-the-Art Foreign Lobbying Campaign.” But this effort is not restricted to politicians. Qatar has become a major donor to Universities, Think Tanks, and other institutions. Qatar is the top foreign donor to U.S. academic institutions, and they have paid top dollar to get universities in the U.S. to open campuses in Doha. When efforts were made to publicly disclose how much money Texas A&M receives from Qatar, their government protested that it would reveal proprietary information, presumably the details of their campaign to influence academia. Qatar has been criticized for both sportswashing and greenwashing their reputation with dollars to promote their interests.

The primary vehicle for funding influence in academia and science is the Qatar Foundation, a state-sponsored nonprofit organization. The Qatar Foundation is the primary sponsor of their local branches of multiple U.S. Universities (these relationships have recently been the subject of investigations by the Department of Education). The upcoming Congress is being run in a partnership with the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) which the Qatar Foundation describes as their “flagship healthcare forum.” The host institution is Hamad Bin Khalifa University, which is part of the Qatar Foundation. Far from a distant relationship with an independent entity, the IAB Board has chosen to take funding and form a partnership with the government of Qatar’s primary vehicle for buying influence in academia.

These relationships are far flung and include many leading institutions, including BMJ. And there is little doubt that WISH and the Qatar Foundation has funded many worthwhile projects to promote global public health and science. But the tobacco industry for many decades similarly funded academia (often for good science) as a way of influencing and blunting potential criticism. Given the repressive policies of Qatar and abuses of migrant workers (not to mention the funding of terrorists), taking funding and partnering with the state is problematic (even if IAB is in good company).

In summary, while in-person conferences serve important functions, they often primarily serve the interests of elite academic institutions and may promote an academic caste system. The choice of Qatar as a venue creates real safety concerns for many members and reflects values that are inconsistent with an ethics organization. Finally, far from there being no connection between the government of Qatar and the meeting, the funding and partnerships being created are funded by a group dedicated to promoting Qatari influence in academia. This was a major mistake by the IAB board.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.