Preparing for advocacy, resisting attack
Brian MartinHumanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Email: bmartin@uow.edu.au
Pacific Conservation Biology 25(1) 105-110 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC17015
Submitted: 15 May 2017 Accepted: 3 September 2017 Published: 19 September 2017
Abstract
When scientists engage in public advocacy, or indeed in any public comment on controversial issues, there is a risk they will come under attack. To reduce the possibility of reprisals, it is worthwhile preparing, in several ways, including learning from the experience of others and making mild comments to see the reaction. If there is a serious risk, reducing expenditures and transferring assets can provide extra financial security. Building networks for personal support is crucially important, including family and friends, work colleagues and various others. When coming under attack, it is important to document actions, seek advice and behave sensibly. The most powerful counter to attacks is mobilisation of support. It is important to support scientists who come under attack, as this protects scientific freedom for all.
Additional keywords: dissent, reprisals, resistance, suppression
References
Aviv, R. (2014). A valuable reputation. New Yorker (New York, N.Y.) 10(February). Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation [accessed 15 May 2017].Baker, C. M. A. (1986). The fruit fly papers. In ‘Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses’. (Eds B. Martin, C. M. A. Baker, C. Manwell, and C. Pugh.) pp. 87–113. (Angus & Robertson: Sydney.)
Barendt, E., Lustgarten, L., Norrie, K., and Stephenson, H. (1997). ‘Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect.’ (Clarendon Press: Oxford.)
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). ‘Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty.’ (Freeman: New York.)
Chambers, H. E. (2004). ‘My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement Survival Guide.’ (Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco.)
Crawshaw, L. (2007). ‘Taming the Abrasive Manager: How to End Unnecessary Roughness in the Workplace.’ (Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.)
De Maria, W. (1999). ‘Deadly Disclosures.’ (Wakefield Press: Adelaide.)
Delborne, J. A. (2008). Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38, 509–541.
| Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Deyo, R. A., Psaty, B. M., Simon, G., Wagner, E. H., and Omenn, G. S. (1997). The messenger under attack – intimidation of researchers by special-interest groups. New England Journal of Medicine 336, 1176–1180.
| The messenger under attack – intimidation of researchers by special-interest groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2s3jvVOlsA%3D%3D&md5=fe848a3804825ac04c8d85f2fea55342CAS |
Felder, L. (2009). ‘Fitting in is Overrated: The Survival Guide for Anyone Who Has Ever Felt Like an Outsider.’ (Sterling: New York.)
Lewis, D. L. (2014). ‘Science for Sale.’ (Skyhorse: New York.)
Martin, B. (1981). The scientific straightjacket: the power structure of science and the suppression of environmental scholarship. The Ecologist 11, 33–43.
Martin, B. (1997). ‘Suppression Stories.’ (Fund for Intellectual Dissent: Wollongong, NSW.)
Martin, B. (1999). Suppression of dissent in science. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 7, 105–135.
Martin, B. (2008). Enabling scientific dissent. New Doctor 88, 2–5.
Martin, B. (2013). ‘Whistleblowing: A Practical Guide.’ (Irene Publishing: Sparsnäs, Sweden.)
Martin, B., and Gray, T. (2005). How to make defamation threats and actions backfire. Australian Journalism Review 27, 157–166.
Martin, B., Baker, C. M. A., Manwell, C., and Pugh, C. (Eds) (1986). ‘Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses.’ (Angus & Robertson: Sydney.)
Moran, G. (1998). ‘Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication.’ (Ablex: Greenwich, CT.)
Mulkay, M., and Gilbert, G. N. (1982). Accounting for error: how scientists construct their social world when they account for correct and incorrect belief. Sociology 16, 165–183.
| Accounting for error: how scientists construct their social world when they account for correct and incorrect belief.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pring, G. W., and Canan, P. (1996). ‘SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out.’ (Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA.)
Robbins, R. (2017). A supplement maker tried to silence this Harvard doctor – and put academic freedom on trial. Stat 10(January). Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/supplement-harvard-pieter-cohen/ [accessed 15 May 2017].
Routley, R., and Plumwood, V. (1986). The ‘Fight for the Forests’ affair. In ‘Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses’. (Eds B. Martin, C. M. A. Baker, C. Manwell, and C. Pugh.) pp. 70–73. (Angus & Robertson: Sydney.)
Routley, R., and Routley, V. (1973). ‘The Fight for the Forests.’ (Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University: Canberra.)
Wyatt, J., and Hare, C. (1997). ‘Work Abuse: How to Recognize and Survive It.’ (Schenkman Books: Rochester, VT.)
