Researchers investigating prostitution ‘worse than old-school pimps’
Taxpayer-funded researchers investigating sex work are “worse than old-school pimps” and have “vested interests”, according to feminist campaigners.
The Sex Workers Evaluate Reporting Violence (SWERV) project, a research initiative between the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Brunel University London and the sex worker charity National Ugly Mugs (NUM), has been awarded almost £1 million in taxpayers’ money.
The funding comes from the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), which is funded by the Department for Health and Social Care.
It allows researchers to explore how NUM’s services and tools, such as its “NUMchecker”, an online system to help sex workers “stay safe and report incidents of harm, crime or violence ... affect sex workers’ safety and mental health”.
But feminists say that the project is a “disgrace” and normalises prostitution.
Rachel Moran, a women’s rights campaigner and the bestselling author of Paid For – My Journey Through Prostitution, told The Telegraph: “A million pounds in taxpayers funding going to ‘research’ designed to legitimise the sex trade is a self-evident disgrace, especially when you consider what it could do if given directly to the women involved.
“There is nothing new here though. Well-heeled researchers have circled like vultures around women trapped in prostitution for decades, making lucrative careers writing up reports which sanitise horrors they’ll never have to experience for themselves.
“They’re worse than the old-school pimps in my opinion, who at least had honesty on their side. They didn’t try to dress their exploitation up as something else.”
Research ‘not looking at the alternatives’
Anna Fisher, co-founder of Nordic Model Now!, which campaigns for the abolition of prostitution, said: “NUM is founded on the premise that prostitution is a normal job and that there’s nothing wrong with it per se and any harms are caused by a few ‘bad apples’ or ‘ugly mugs’ – along with other people’s bad attitudes (‘stigma’) and oppressive legislation and law enforcement.
“This flies in the face of what everyone knows in their gut – that being paid to be sexually used and penetrated by multiple random strangers, behind closed doors, on a daily basis is not in any way a normal job and is fraught with physical, emotional and psychological risks.
“This research is not looking at how to provide the alternatives that nine out of 10 women involved in prostitution are crying out for nor much-needed socioeconomic solutions.
“Instead, it appears to be asking if the services that NUM provides are helping ‘sex workers’ safety, mental health and wellbeing’.
“On the surface, this might sound grand, but the conflicts of interest are profound.
“NUM receives funding to provide these services and so has a vested interest to show that they are successful.
“That this biased and misguided research has received such substantial public funding is yet more evidence of how academia has been captured by advisers and lobbyists with extreme ideological views who care not a jot about women’s wellbeing, dignity and equality.”
A spokesman for the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said: “It is common practice for charities and service providers, such as National Ugly Mugs, to work with independent academics to evaluate their interventions.
‘We support academic freedom’
“The SWERV study, which started in December 2023, will work with sex workers to evaluate the effectiveness of tools designed by the charity to support victims of violence and warn of individuals and conditions that may pose a threat to their safety.
“The team leading the evaluation were selected to receive funding from the NIHR through a competitive tender process and their findings will be made available through publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal.
“The experts leading SWERV have over 30 years’ experience in the evaluation of public health interventions to prevent violence against women and marginalised groups within communities.
“We support academic freedom of speech and inquiry and this includes our academics being able to research areas which some may regard as controversial.”
A spokesman for Brunel University London, said: “We support academic freedom of speech and inquiry and this includes our academics being able to research areas which some may regard as challenging.”
The Department of Health and Social Care was unable comment due to the election period.
