Email
A 3D reconstruction of the divisive French revolutionary figure, Maximilien de Robespierre, has sparked much academic debate around issues of authenticity.
Forensic researchers Philippe Charlier and Philippe Froesch used a death mask, alleged to have been moulded just after Robespierre's executed in Paris in 1794, to reconstruct his face, which – with the analysis of medical documents – led to a new diagnosis that Robespierre had the auto-immune disease sarcoidosis.
Historian Peter McPhee, whose research is cited by Charlier and Froesch in their 2013 paper published in the Lancet, tells us why he is unconvinced by their findings and how complicated life becomes for academics when a huge media spotlight is shone on a piece of research.
Usually we are pleased when we see our painstaking research cited by others. But very occasionally, it is used in ways that we find inaccurate, or to support a contrary argument to the one we put forward.
Here is a recent example. On 28 July 1794, Maximilien de Robespierre was executed in Paris along with his closest allies. He was one of the most controversial figures of the Revolution, and perhaps in all French history.
Massive media interest followed the digital reconstruction in 2012 of Robespierre's face and a new medical diagnosis by researchers Philippe Froesch and Philippe Charlier.
Their diagnosis, reported in the Lancet, was that Robespierre suffered from sarcoidosis, a crippling auto-immune disorder in which the body's defences attack its own organs and tissues. He was dying from within before he was killed from without.
In making their claims, Charlier and Froesch relied in large part on the evidence I adduced of his illnesses, but they ignored my historian's caution about the use of such evidence for this important revolutionary figure.
In my original work I sifted carefully through the evidence before concluding that it was likely that Robespierre suffered from acute physical and nervous stress, to the point of collapse, leading to recurring and lengthening absences from public life. I discounted much of the evidence Charlier and Froesch accept as fact to further their claim of sarcoidosis.
Several historians have questioned the authenticity of the death mask used by the two scientists to reconstruct Robespierre's face.
This raises concerns about the gulf between the confident certainties of post facto medical diagnoses and the hesitations of historians more attuned to the ambiguities of the evidence with which we deal.
Historians are trained to be sceptical about the evidence they use: who produced it? Why? And to what ends?
Ordinarily such disagreements are handled in academic forums. But when a "revelation" comes to the attention of the mainstream media, awkward questions arise for those whose findings are used and cited inappropriately. Accurate citation is a sine qua non of good research.
Like any other researchers, historians are pleased when their work is used by others, especially in wider public debate. But this grates when research findings are distorted or even misused in the media. In this case, Robespierre remains such a controversial and misunderstood figure after 220 years that it is a pity an opportunity has been lost to take public awareness beyond crude stereotypes.
This is a case where some consultation between scientists and historians would have been mutually beneficial. It did not happen. Historians have a huge amount to learn from forensic science and neuro-science in particular, and in turn scientists might learn from us about the limitations to the use of written evidence from other cultures and periods of time.
We have a situation now where many media outlets across the world have been happy to accept that the claims must be correct because they are based on science. We know that the media is often happy to cherry-pick to make a newsworthy story but in this case the cherries were served up on a plate – in a very brief article.
Professor Peter McPhee is a historian and honourary fellow at the University of Melbourne.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Looking for your next university role? Browse Guardian jobs for hundreds of the latest academic, administrative and research posts.
;