Strategies for Dissenting Scientists
Published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1998, pp. 605-616.

Brian Martin
email: bmartin@uow.edu.au




Abstract

Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. A scientific dissenter should first of all realize that science is a system of power as well as knowledge, in which interest groups play a key role and insiders have an extra advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. If they gain some recognition or outside support, they may be attacked. In the face of such obstacles, there are several strategies, including mimicking science, aiming at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a different audience, exposing suppression of dissent, and building a social movement.

Keywords dissent; whistleblowing

Acknowledgments I thank Don Eldridge and David Hess for helpful comments on a draft.

Introduction

Science is normally presented to the public as an enterprise based on skepticism and openness to new ideas, in which evidence and argumentation are examined on their own merits. Trusting newcomers who present views that conflict with standard ideas may thus expect that their work will be given a prompt, fair, and incisive analysis, being accepted if it passes scrutiny and being given detailed reasons if not. When, instead, their work is ignored, ridiculed, or rejected without explanation, they assume that there has been some sort of mistake, and often begin a search to find the "right person" - someone who fits the stereotype of the open-minded scientist. This can be a long search!

Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked. To have their ideas examined fairly, it is wishful thinking to rely on the normal operation of the scientific reception system. To have a decent chance, dissenters need to develop a strategy. They need to understand the way science actually operates, to work out their goals, and then to formulate a plan to move towards those goals, taking into account likely obstacles and sources of support. The following sections cover, in turn, the dynamics of the scientific community, the problems faced by challengers, likely responses to dissenters, and strategies.

My perspective on dissent in science - which in a single article can only be outlined rather than fully justified - is based on many years’ experience as a scientist and social scientist both in presenting dissenting ideas as well as studying their reception. This includes debates over supersonic transport aircraft, nuclear power, fluoridation, nuclear winter, pesticides, and the origin of AIDS, with a special focus on the treatment of dissenters (e.g. Martin, 1979, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 1997; Martin et al., 1986). Having given advice to many challengers, it is my perception that there is a great need to better understand the role of power in science, to be aware of the likely responses to dissenters, and to consciously examine and try out strategies.


The Dynamics of the Scientific Community

There are various ways to understand the way the scientific community operates, including as a search for truth, a puzzle-solving enterprise within paradigms (Kuhn, 1970), and a social enterprise in which scientists seek to enroll others, both humans and objects, to their own cause (Latour, 1987). To understand the response to dissenters, though, it is more useful to think of the scientific community in terms of "interests" (Barnes, 1977). Company owners have an interest in making a profit and scientists have an interest in publishing their papers and being recognized. "Interests" can be thought of in terms of a stake in money, power, status, privilege, or other advantages.

To talk of interests is to focus on the social organization of science. Often, when thinking about "science," people think of scientific knowledge, which is conceived of as some sort of essence above and beyond human interests. It is useful to remember that scientific knowledge is created by humans and, as a result, is inevitably shaped by human concerns (Watson, 1938). By understanding the social dynamics of the scientific community, it is possible to gain insight into processes that influence the direction, pace, and content of scientific knowledge. The study of the scientific community then leads back to interests.

Some types of interests are corporate, government, bureaucratic, professional, career, and psychological. In each case they can exert strong pressures on the direction of research and shape the response to challengers. Note that interests influence science without the necessity of conscious bias, since people’s world views are shaped by interests.

Corporations fund a large amount of research, naturally enough the sorts of research that are likely to lead to corporate advantage. A large corporation can be considered to have a "vested interest" in certain types of research and certain results, because it has used these to build a position of power which it wishes to maintain. A pharmaceutical company, for example, has a strong interest in its best-selling drugs. It will fund research into drugs that it can patent and sell, but not into nonpatentable substances. It has an interest in opposing treatments that do not rely on drugs at all (Abraham, 1995).

Governments are much like large corporations, funding research that serves their interests. The military, a key part of the governmental apparatus, funds lots of research into weapons but very little into methods of nonviolent struggle such as strikes, boycotts, rallies, and noncooperation. The influence of governments and corporations on the direction and content of scientific research is considerable (Boffey, 1975; Dickson, 1984; Primack & von Hippel, 1974).

Governments, corporations and other large organizations are typically structured as bureaucracies, with a hierarchy and division of labour. Bureaucratic elites resist challenges to their power and privilege even when changes would benefit the organization as a whole. For example, military innovations such as accurate naval gunnery and the machine gun were resisted by military commanders for decades because they upset normal organizational arrangements. Scientific research in corporations, governments, and universities is organized bureaucratically, to some extent. Top scientific administrators have a vested interest in maintaining their power (Blissett, 1972; Elias, Martins, & Whitley, 1982; Rahman, 1972).

Professions such as medicine and law can be understood as systems for maintaining control over an occupation, which includes controlling working conditions and entry to the field. Professions have a vested interest in this control, which sometimes is protected by laws preventing nonprofessionals from practicing (Collins, 1979; Larson, 1977).

Individual scientists have interests in their own careers, for example in publishing papers, gaining jobs and promotions, and winning honors. They can also develop a psychological interest in particular theories and methods. If a challenger comes along with a simple alternative to the theory on which they have built their careers, most scientists are not likely to be receptive, since their status will be undermined and their lifelong commitment apparently wasted (Mitroff, 1974).

These different interests are often interconnected. Governments fund research by corporations and universities. Corporations fund research by medical professionals. Individual scientists build up careers in government or corporate labs.

The interests model of science is quite a contrast to the traditional model of a search for truth which is guided by norms such as skepticism, universality, and communality. The usefulness of these norms for describing science has been questioned (Mulkay, 1976). Indeed, science is possibly just as well described by "counternorms" such as emotional commitment and organized dogmatism (Mitroff, 1974). Using the interests model, we would expect the scientific community to respond to the most salient interests.

For example, because certain chemical companies make a lot of money selling pesticides, they heavily fund research into pesticides, do not fund much research into alternatives to pesticides, and are threatened by adverse findings about pesticides. Just as important as these direct links between interests and research are indirect influences. Priorities for seemingly independent fields can be influenced by chemical company interests.

Another important interest is that of the scientific community as a whole in the status of science as a superior method of gaining knowledge. Scientific experts are given greater credibility because they are seen as having special access to truth about the world. Scientific truths are not supposed to be tainted by interests, which is why scientific knowledge is portrayed as rising above the limitations of the system that created it.

Interests are an influence on the way science proceeds, but do not determine it. There is always some scope for resistance.

Incidentally, within the social studies of science, analysis of interests has become quite unfashionable. Perhaps this is related to the field becoming more career oriented and hence less helpful to those wanting to expose vested interests!


Problems Faced by Challengers

If there are strong interests behind a particular position or theory, then the task of challengers is difficult. This difficulty is aggravated if challengers are outsiders who don’t "play the game." If you are a talented scientist with a good track record, working at an elite institution, and write a conventional looking scientific paper - but with challenging ideas - there may be difficulties enough. For anyone else, it is much tougher.

If you are from a low status institution, that is a big disadvantage (Peters & Ceci, 1982). It is even worse to have no institution at all and to write from a home address. It is also a disadvantage to be unknown in the field, to have no prior publications, to be a female, to be too young or too old, or to be from a country with low scientific status.

Although the rhetoric about science is that it is ideas that count, not who expresses them, in practice ideas are commonly judged by their source. Ideas are given much more credibility if they come from a respected source. Outsiders have an uphill battle.

Just as important is presenting one’s ideas in the expected way. A paper, to be recognized as scientific, must conform to the standard mold. This varies from field to field, but usually means a restrained, impersonal style, suitable references to earlier work, and use of jargon appropriate to the topic, all in a concise package that is similar to other writings in the field. Anyone who writes about their own personal discovery, not mentioning prior work, and writes for a general audience, has little chance of being published in a scientific journal even if the ideas are conventional and would be publishable if in standard form. Outsiders sometimes betray their ignorance of the usual style by using ALL CAPITALS and making bold claims.

Once again, rhetoric about science might suggest that contributions should be judged on their content rather than their appearance, but the reality is otherwise. Learning the standard style usually occurs during the conventional career route involving years of formal study and apprenticeship, plus working in a speciality to become familiar with prior work. Indeed, without being an active player in the field, it may be impossible to keep up, since this requires having access to the latest preprints, attending major conferences, or knowing key people. Furthermore, without coming through conventional channels, it is often impossible to gain access to equipment needed to do the most advanced work in the field.

Arguably, one reason that science is so successful is that it is a very conservative and insular operation. By concentrating enormous resources on solving the puzzles that are on the immediate frontier, scientists are able to make steady advances and occasional breakthroughs. (Because of the role of funding and paradigms, this tends to be in areas that are useful to powerful interests.) The cost of this focus on current puzzles is a neglect of foundational questions, anomalies, and unconventional ideas.

Typical working scientists have a hard time keeping up with conventional research in their speciality. There are experiments to be done, grant applications to write, papers to be written, seminars and conferences to attend, and perhaps teaching. Research is very competitive. Delay may mean losing out to others in the field. It may mean loss of a publication, a job, a promotion, perhaps a discovery. In this context, many scientists do not want to "waste" their time looking at someone else’s claim to have made a breakthrough, unless it is a top person in the field. What do they have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view. If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas.


Responses

A person who challenges the conventional wisdom is likely first to be ignored, then dismissed and finally, if these responses are inadequate, attacked. The first stage is being ignored. When an outsider sends a paper to established scientists, for example, many will not bother to reply. When an entire dissident field establishes its own publications, it may be ignored by the mainstream.

Dismissal is the most common response when seeking formal recognition in orthodox channels. A paper sent to a top journal may be rejected without being sent to referees. Editors often perform a screening function, deciding what is credible enough to warrant serious consideration. Editors can also affect the likelihood of acceptance by their selection of referees.

Sometimes, though, dissidents cannot be silenced by ignoring and rejecting them. They may develop their own constituency or gain publicity. For example, nonscientists who point out the healing power of herbs, based on their own observations, are usually ignored by medical researchers. Some researchers carry out careful studies of herbs and seek publication; they are likely to encounter difficulties or, if their work is published, be ignored by the mainsteam. However, there is a thriving alternative health movement which is very receptive to any findings about the benefits of herbs. This poses a threat to corporations, governments, and scientists with a stake in the conventional approach based on synthetic drugs. At this stage, one possibility is attack.

A scientist can be attacked in various ways, including ostracism, petty harassment, excessive scrutiny, blocking of publications, denial of jobs or tenure, blocking access to research facilities, withdrawal of research grants, threats, punitive transfers, formal reprimands, demotion, spreading of rumors, deregistration, dismissal, and blacklisting, and threats of any of these. There are numerous documented cases in various fields. For example, many scientists pursuing research critical of pesticides or proposing alternatives to pesticides have come under attack, for example having grants removed or being threatened with dismissal (Martin, 1996; van den Bosch, 1978). Dentists critical of fluoridation have been threatened with deregistration (Martin, 1991; Waldbott, 1965). Government scientists critical of nuclear power have lost their staff and been transferred as a form of harassment (Freeman, 1981; Martin, 1986). Parapsychologists have encountered difficulties in their careers (Hess, 1992).

Dr John Coulter, a scientist at the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide, South Australia, spoke out about about various environmental and health issues. After he commented about hazards of pesticides in a talk, the pesticide manufacturer wrote a letter of complaint to the director of the Institute. After Coulter did a study of the mutagenic potential of a sterilising agent used at the Institute and released his results to the workers, he was dismissed (Martin et al., 1986).

Dr George Waldbott, a prominent allergist and author of hundreds of scientific papers, was the leading US opponent of fluoridation from the mid 1950s through the 1970s. Waldbott was visited by a German profluoridationist who misrepresented his intentions, gained access to Waldbott’s files and then wrote a critical account Waldbott’s methods. This misleading account later appeared in a dossier on opponents of fluoridation compiled by the American Dental Association and was used to undermine Waldbott wherever he appeared (Waldbott, 1965).

The actual cases that are publicized are the tip of the proverbial iceberg, for several reasons. Many dissenters do not make an issue of attacks, preferring to keep a low profile and continue their careers. Also, only some types of attacks are easy to document, such as reprimands and dismissals. It is very difficult to prove that failure to get a job or grant is due to discrimination.

Attacks on dissidents are never admitted as such. They are always justified as being due to inadequacies on the part of the dissident, such as low quality work or inappropriate behavior. To determine whether actions against someone are justifiable, it is useful to use the "double standard test." Is the same action taken against everyone with the same level of performance? Or is the person who is challenging conventional wisdom harassed or reprimanded, while others with similar performance are unaffected?

Another useful test is to ask whether the response is in line with normal scientific behavior. If a scientist writes a challenging paper, it should be considered quite legitimate for someone to call or write to the scientist questioning the method or results or complaining about bias. This is a process of engagement and dialogue, and does not jeopardize the scientist’s ability to continue research. Even strong language should be tolerated if it is directly to the scientist or published in a journal where there is a timely opportunity to reply. On the other hand, when a critic threatens a law suit or writes to the scientist’s boss or institution making a complaint, this is obviously an attempt to intimidate or hinder the scientist’s work or career. The "call to the boss" is very common and is an excellent indicator that a response is an attempt to suppress dissent rather than engage in dialogue.

Attacks are much the same whether they are made against scientists presenting challenging ideas, against whistleblowers who speak out about scientific fraud or corporate corruption, or against scapegoats who become targets for whatever reason. Most scientists are completely unprepared for attacks. They do not realize that science can be a ruthless power play in which the most underhanded methods may be used against those who challenge vested interests. They believe, incorrectly, that formal channels, such as grievance procedures, professional associations, and courts, provide reliable avenues for justice, when actually they are strongly weighted in favor of those with more money and power. In order to survive and thrive as a challenger, it is necessary to understand the operations of power as well as knowledge. Most of all, it is important to work out a strategy.
...


Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Strategies for Dissenting Scientists




Estratégias para cientistas dissidentes


+ + +




Conselho para scholars dissidentes sobre o que fazer e a reação da Nomenklatura científica







Advice for dissident scholars

Published under the title "Advice for the dissident scholar", Thought & Action, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 119-130, with extensive editorial changes. The version submitted is given here.

Brian Martin
email: bmartin@uow.edu.au

Dissident scholars can be attacked in various ways, including by denial of tenure, harassment, withdrawal of research grants, official reprimands, referral to psychiatrists, ostracism by colleagues, spreading of rumors, transfer to different locations or jobs, and dismissal. Inevitably, the justification for such attacks is poor performance or some other inadequacy. At this stage, many scholars are all too ready to blame themselves. But, at least in some cases, they are the victims of suppression of dissent.

Anyone who does something that threatens a powerful individual or group is potentially a target of suppression. The classic case is the whistleblower, who speaks out about corruption or dangers to public health, for example accusing a senior colleague of scientific fraud or pointing out the danger of a chemical produced by one's employer.[1]

But there are many other victims of suppression who wouldn't qualify as whistleblowers. People can be victimized even if they don't speak out and even if they don't work for an organization. Anyone who threatens an established practice or policy backed by powerful interests is vulnerable to attack. This includes doing unwelcome research or providing unwelcome policy advice--unwelcome to powerful groups--or questioning appointments made by an insider clique.

It was in 1979 that I first began investigating and writing about suppression of intellectual dissent. I was then an applied mathematician interested in environmental issues, and I discovered a pattern of suppression of environmental scholars. The more I looked into the issue, the more cases showed up. Then, after publishing articles about suppression, even more cases were brought to my attention. Initially I hadn't even thought of suppression as a problem in science and academia. Now I realize that it is pervasive. Although each case has its own peculiarities, there are regularly recurring features of suppression cases.[2]

Any scholar who challenges a powerful establishment is a likely target for suppression sooner or later.[3] But lots of others are suppressed too. In this article I first describe how to assess whether suppression is occurring and then summarize some insights about how to resist and survive attacks on dissent.


Is it suppression?

There are two main features of suppression cases. First, someone does something--research, teaching, or public comment--that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry, profession, or one's own superiors. Second, there is some attack on the activity or the person. This might be censorship, disciplinary proceedings, slander, transfer, dismissal, or blacklisting, or threats of any of these.

A few cases are dramatic. Melvin Reuber, who had done research on pesticides and cancer, was suddenly given a severe reprimand by his boss. The bulk of this reprimand was published in a chemical industry trade magazine and circulated around the world.[4] Margot O'Toole, who persistently raised questions about the work of her superiors--including Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore--suffered enormous damage to her scientific career.[5]

Most cases, by contrast, are much more subtle. Job applications are unsuccessful; publications are rejected; promotion is denied; grant applications are unsuccessful. In most of such cases, it is impossible to know the real reason. It might be a fair decision, it might be suppression, or it might just be bad luck.

There are two simple techniques to help decide whether suppression has occurred. The first is the double standard test. Have other scholars, with the same performance as the one in question, been treated the same way? For example, a researcher might be denied promotion for lack of publications. Were colleagues with the same publication record--but who never refused to add their boss's name to their papers, even though the boss rarely set foot in the lab--also denied promotion? Was the only teacher whose position was declared redundant the one who spoke to the media, criticizing an influential company in the town?

The second technique is to look for patterns of suppression. For example, there are numerous cases of attacks on expert critics of pesticides, nuclear power, and fluoridation. In each case there are powerful interests that are threatened by dissent: the pesticide industry; government and the nuclear industry in the case of nuclear power; the dental profession in the case of fluoridation.[6]

There is never a final proof that suppression has occurred. But using the double standard test and establishing a pattern of suppression can provide strong circumstantial evidence.


Truth is not enough

Many scholars have a deep, abiding faith in the power of truth. They believe that if people really knew what was going on--about the corruption, the danger to the public, or the attacks on free speech--they would be supportive. They also believe that somewhere there are powerful people who will respond to the truth and ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

My first important piece of advice for dissident scholars is not to rely on truth. It's useful but not enough. Certainly it should not be relied upon to sway the powerful.

Scholars are trained to believe that academia is a system for seeking and disseminating knowledge and that the "marketplace of ideas" will lead to the triumph of truth. This isn't a good model. It's far more useful to treat academia as a system of power, in which knowledge plays an important role. Government and industry don't fund research out of altruism: results are expected to be useful, either in a practical or symbolic way. Profits, power, and status are the keys.

Another way to look at this is to remember Lord Acton's saying, "power tends to corrupt." Those who have power in academia--deans, grant administrators, research directors, editors--are liable to use it to advance their own ends and protect themselves from threats.

Most whistleblowers believe in the power of truth. They speak out, believing that the problems they have pointed out will be quickly rectified once people know about them. Occasionally this actually happens. But all too often it is the whistleblower who is seen as the "problem" and who is "rectified."

This does not mean that there is a conscious conspiracy of evil schemers who set out to destroy dissidents. Just the opposite. Those who attack dissent sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing. They see dissenters as incompetent or dangerous because they are questioning a valid procedure or undermining support for an important enterprise. Among those who attack dissent, it just so happens that there is a nice meshing of their beliefs and their self-interest.


Strategy

Anyone dissenting from powerful groups needs to understand how power operates and to develop a strategy. My second important piece of advice for dissident scholars is that they should work out their goals.

This may seem unnecessary. Surely goals are self-evident: expose and correct the injustice or abuse of power! But seldom is it clear-cut what this means in practice. Does it mean allowing free speech? Penalizing those who suppressed dissent? Exposing the wrong-doing? Obtaining compensation?

Dissidents need to sit down and carefully examine what they want to achieve. Is enabling the public to learn about a dangerous situation the only thing? What about keeping one's job, or maintaining future career options? Is the aim to expose and penalize the guilty ones, or to have them admit that they were wrong? What personal sacrifices is one willing to make to achieve one's most important goals? What about a personal life?

Once goals have been spelled out, then it's time to develop a strategy, which is a means of moving from the present situation towards the goals. Any decent strategy must take political realities into account, things such as who are likely to be supporters, the resources at the disposal of opponents, the cultural climate, one's skills in this sort of enterprise, and so forth. In formulating a strategy, it is valuable to have a gut-level understanding of how academia operates as a system of power-knowledge.

Two contrasting Australian examples illustrate the value of understanding science and academia as systems of power-knowledge and having well-thought-out goals. (There are plenty of cases from other countries. I'm using Australian examples because I'm more familiar with the details.)

First is the case of Phil Vardy and Jill French, medical researchers who worked for William McBride, the Australian doctor who discovered that the drug thalidomide causes birth defects. Vardy and French found out that McBride had falsified some of his data in a published paper. After they confronted him about it, they were dismissed and their careers were almost destroyed. They had the naive belief that truth would lead to justice. They had no strategy that took account of the exercise of power. The board of Foundation 41, which McBride had set up for his medical research, backed him. McBride had the prestige and power. It was only years later, after journalists took up the story, that McBride's fraud was exposed.[7]

The second example involves Dr David Rindos, an archaeologist at the University of Western Australia who was denied tenure in 1993. He knew that this was coming. After arriving at the university in 1989 from the US, he soon discovered a range of improper behaviors in the Archaeology Department, including sexual impositions placed on students. As soon as he began expressing concern about these problems, Rindos came under attack. He was moved to another department, accused of plagiarism, accused of sexual harassment, had his teaching taken away and was eventually moved out of any department--a pattern typical for a severe case of suppression. This was highly stressful, but he mounted an effective campaign with the goal of gaining tenure or, if that was unsuccessful, exposing the university administration. He produced a mammoth body of material documenting his case for tenure. The tenure committee based its case for rejection on his research record. Rindos, as well as documenting his case, mobilized support nationally and internationally. Thirty prominent figures in the field wrote to the university testifying to his outstanding research record and abilities. Rindos and his supporters also developed an effective media campaign and won the support of some politicians. The Western Australian parliament set up a major inquiry into the whole affair. Rindos' campaign took into account the powerful forces ranged against him. Although he was not successful in gaining tenure, he certainly succeeded in severely embarrassing the university.[8]

Rindos didn't think he was in control quite as much as I've suggested. For example, he contacted just a dozen people to obtain letters of support, and they took the initiative to spread the word to others. But he was going about it in the right sort of way. Tragically, he died unexpectedly in 1996 at the age of 49. The parliamentary inquiry, reporting in December 1997, strongly criticized many of the university's actions in the affair.

There's no method that can guarantee success. Sometimes a simple "speak-truth-to-power" approach will work, and sometimes the most sophisticated campaign will fail. I believe that an approach based on clear goals and a strategy based on an understanding of academia as a power-knowledge system will improve the chances of success. With this foundation, it is worthwhile examining some methods of opposing suppression.


Document the case

This is absolutely crucial if there is any chance of repercussions. Evidence of corruption, discrimination or public hazard must be watertight. This means saving copies of correspondence, receipts, lab notes, drafts of papers, or whatever is important. It can also involve notes on conversations and signed statements from colleagues. Documents should be kept in a safe place.

Documents are valuable, but to be useful there needs to be an account of the case that is accessible and understandable to outsiders--people who aren't familiar with the situation. In my files on suppression cases, there are several for which I have literally hundreds of pages of documents. Very few people are going to wade through or make sense of such a pile of paper.

What is needed is a convenient summary, perhaps a one-page summary or a 5000-word article. The documents provide back-up material. For the person in the center of a case, it is extremely difficult to obtain the perspective to write a clear summary. If possible, a sympathetic person should write an account. Alternatively, if one writes about one's own case, comments should be obtained from others on how to make it communicate well.


Mobilize support

In my opinion, this is usually the most important technique for opposing suppression. This is also the area where understanding of academia as a power-knowledge system is most crucial. It is vital to work out who are likely to be supporters, neutrals, and opponents, and then to encourage supporters to take action, encourage neutrals to become sympathetic, and discourage opponents from action or reduce their hostility.

* When confronting a powerful interest group, members of this group are least likely to provide help--at least not openly.

* When some colleagues are sympathetic, this is a great source of strength. But some whistleblowers are quickly isolated, since their colleagues are afraid that they'll be victimized too.

* Other dissidents can be very helpful. They can provide moral support and invaluable insights into the dynamics of suppression. Whistleblower support organizations also can be very helpful.

* People from outside the organization sometimes can be a great help. This might include personal friends, colleagues at other institutions, "members of the public," and even people from other countries.

* A supportive union is a tremendous asset and can often make the difference between success and failure. Unfortunately, many dissidents report that unions and professional associations are unhelpful or even favor the other side. This can be because conflicts pit one union member against another or because of links between union officials and the group attacking the dissident. Consequently, it is wise to foster union activism on issues of dissent while not assuming there will be support on any individual case.

* Social movement groups, such as social justice or environmental groups, sometimes are helpful. This depends a lot on the issue. If you've been speaking out about problems due to forestry practices, then environmental groups are likely to be supportive. But there are no guarantees. Social movement elites have been known to suppress insiders or sympathizers who are seen to be critical of the movement or its methods.

* The media often can play a crucial role. I'll comment on this below.

How can allies of a dissident help? A first and absolutely vital way is by listening and providing advice and moral support. Being attacked is often psychologically devastating. It can destroy people's faith in the organization or cause to which they have committed years of work--or even destroy faith in the possibility of justice. Furthermore, when longstanding colleagues and friends show their true colors by deserting a dissident at a crucial moment, this can be a severe blow. To have even one friend or family member who is willing to stand by through thick and thin is to have a prize asset. (Some dissidents mistakenly demand or expect unlimited support, causing supporters to burn out.) If some supporters organize an action group to take up a case, this is good fortune indeed.

A second important way that supporters can help is by raising the issues: exposing the corruption, warning the public of dangers, etc. The aim of suppression is to stop open discussion of the issues. By continuing to raise the alarm, supporters undermine this aim.

The other issue is the suppression itself. If the dissident is willing, this should be exposed. Suppression works best when it is hidden. Exposed to public eyes, it usually discredits the suppressors--even when what they are suppressing isn't very worthy.

Supporters also can play an important role by mobilizing further support and by taking direct action and by obtaining publicity, an important topic in itself.
...


Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Advice for dissident scholars

+++++


Vote neste blog para o prêmio TOPBLOG 2010.


O modus operandi orwelliano da Nomenklatura científica contra os dissidentes: Inquisição sem fogueiras


Sunday, June 06, 2010

More Political Climate Science
by Patrick J. Michaels

In today’s odd academic culture, including the world of climate science, academic freedom applies selectively. People use their positions and their email for politicking and electioneering and have no trouble retaining their jobs. But using your email to send out some inconvenient, apolitical weather data that says something your boss or your governor may not like can get you fired.

I can’t count the number of emails I received in my thirty years at University of Virginia where this faculty member or that administrator urged me to support some piece of legislation. But the latest email kerfluffle, involving Phil Mote, director of the Oregaon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, goes a bit further.

Mote was upset that Art Robinson, a physician from Cave Junction, Oregon, won the Republican primary for Oregon’s fourth congressional district.


That’s because Robinson was behind the “Oregon Petition Project,” in which over 31,000 people, largely science professionals (including over 9,000 with doctorates), signed on to a document stating that there was “no scientific evidence” that greenhouse gas emissions could cause “catastrophic heating” in the foreseeable future.

Robinson did not harp on this issue in the campaign. Instead he ran against the general politics of 12-term incumbent Pete deFazio, including his March vote for President Obama’s health care bill. With that one, deFazio probably voted himself out of Congress.

In response to Robinson’s Republican primary win, Mote wrote to his colleagues at Oregon State University emphasizing that Robinson was the force behind the Petition Project and that, if he were elected, OSU would be put in the “tragic ranks of our climate colleagues at University of Oklahoma…and University of Alaska,” where elected officials have the temerity to disagree with Mote about global warming. He signed his missive as “Director, Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and Oregon Climate Services.” Eventually he emailed his colleagues, calling his initial message a “mistake.”

Hardly. Consider the shady track record of climatology in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.




Mote’s previous position was Washington State Climatologist at the University of Washington, where he repeatedly pointed to a 50% decline in mountain snows between 1950 and the mid-1990s. But there are data available after 1995 and before 1950, and when all the data are taken together — thanks in part to the fact that it has snowed plenty there in the last 15 years—the strong decline is erased.

Mote’s then Associate State Climatologist, Mark Albright, emailed this information to several people. When he refused to stop telling the whole truth, Mote terminated his position.
...


Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Townhall

+++++


NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:


Como tenho destacado neste blog - a Nomenklatura científica é antropofágica e destruidora de carreiras acadêmicas dos que ousam ser dissidentes do paradigma consensual.

Falando em consensual, procure por sua carteira acadêmica: ela está sendo tungada pelos agentes da KGB da Nomenklatura científica.

Ciência se faz discutindo ideias. Hoje, o que temos, é o discurso único -- todo mundo pensando igual e ninguém pensando em nada!

Triste ciência -- sequestrada por agendas político-ideológicas.


+++++


Vote neste blog para o prêmio TOPBLOG 2010.

Cientistas Dissidentes de Darwin

O Abate dos Dissidentes de Darwin


Dissidência Científica Contra o Darwinismo é o título de uma declaração do Discovery Institute ^[1][2] lançado através de uma publicação em 2001 para contestar a validade científica da teoria da evolução. A declaração, qual um manifesto, foi assinada inicialmente por quinhentos cientistas de variadas áreas: ciências biológicas, física, química, matemática, medicina, ciência da computação e disciplinas relacionadas. Todos possuem doutorado e a maior proporção é de biólogos.

Muitos são professores^[3] ou pesquisadores em importantes universidades e instituições de pesquisas, tais como: o MIT; o Instituto Smithsoniano; a Universidade de Cambridge; a Universidade da Califórnia, em Los Angeles; a Universidade da Califórnia, em Berkeley; a Universidade de Princeton; a Universidade da Pensilvânia; a Universidade Estadual de Ohio; a Universidade da Geórgia; e a Universidade de Washington.

Essa declaração foi uma reação a um documentário de televisão (Evolution, produzida pela Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) e pela Scientific American) que afirmava ser impossível um cientista sério duvidar da teoria de Charles Darwin. Em 27 de julho de 2007, a lista contava com 748 assinaturas de acadêmicos e doutores. A lista atual está com aproximadamente oitocentas assinaturas.