Judging by the treatment of Drs Chapela and Hayes at Berkeley, Dr Losey at Cornell, and the recently sacked scientists at Health Canada, the heavy-handed suppression of unpalateable judgements or research is not a peculiarly British problem.
1.Non-Conformist Scientists 'Struggle to Be Heard'
2.British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report
---
1.Non-Conformist Scientists 'Struggle to Be Heard'
By John von Radowitz, Science Correspondent
Press Association News, Mon 16 Aug 2004
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3352841
Scientists with unorthodox views face an uphill struggle to be heard in Britain, a researcher claimed today.
The first instinct of Britain’s scientific community was to shut out any dissenting voice, said Swedish expert Dr Lena Eriksson.
Non-conformist scientists were likely to be driven into exile and find themselves in conflict with the establishment, she said.
The picture was very different in Sweden where controversial scientists were allowed to "have their say" in order not to create adversaries.
Dr Eriksson, from the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, said British scientific intolerance was helping to undermine the public’s faith in science.
She said: "A good example of this is with new technologies such as genetically modified foods. The media are often blamed for presenting a misleading image of science, but to some extent, public perception of such scientifically and politically charged issues turns on the way scientists present themselves to the outside world.
"The image of a scientific establishment attacking and punishing individual researchers with contentious results such as the MMR vaccine controversy has done little to inspire public trust in science."
Dr Eriksson interviewed about 30 scientists in Britain and Sweden working in the field of genetic modification.
The results showed that British scientists felt it was crucial to prevent "mavericks" gaining legitimacy, which meant distancing themselves from anyone whose ideas were too controversial. In Sweden the view was that ousting dissenters was likely to backfire.
British scientists were also more accepting of management and employer control over the publication of their material.
They saw it as necessary for their own protection in a hostile world, while their Swedish counterparts tended to resent excessive "red tape".
Dr Eriksson said in Britain dissenters were driven to find an alternative audience, which put them at odds with the scientific community to which they once belonged.
She cited Dr Arpad Pusztai, who fell from grace over his claims about the safety of GM food, as a classic example.
The Hungarian-born researcher, once a respected figure at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, carried out a study in which laboratory rats were fed GM potatoes.
His claims, made on television, that the rats suffered changes to their internal organs and immune systems, led to his suspension and forced retirement in 1998.
He went on to launch his own website which is openly critical of the scientific establishment.
Dr Eriksson said: "Dr Pusztai was a high profile expert within his own field.
"It's a very sad story, really. You have this guy who has a lot of respect within the community becoming a loose cannon who is cast out and forced to find a new audience. That's how mavericks are made."
Dr Eriksson's research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), has been submitted for publication in the journal Social Studies of Science.
---
2.British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report
Press release, Cardiff University, 16 Aug 2004
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/newsevents/6404.html
Scientists in Britain tend to exclude controversial "maverick" colleagues from their community to ensure they do not gain scientific legitimacy, new research has shown.
A Cardiff University study has found that British scientists' attitudes differ considerably from those of their counterparts in Sweden, when managing dissent.
The research, by Lena Eriksson, a Swedish researcher in the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, has shown that British scientists operated with firm boundaries between 'inside' and 'outside' and believed that controversial scientists needed to be placed outside the community so as to not gain scientific legitimacy.
Swedish scientists were more inclined to ensure that all members 'have their say'. They were more likely to be inclusive, so as not to create adversaries who would threaten the scientific community.
"A good example of this is with new technologies such as Genetically Modified foods," said Dr Eriksson. "The media are often blamed for presenting a misleading image of science, but to some extent, public perception of such scientifically and politically charged issues turns on the way scientists present themselves to the outside world.
"The image of a scientific establishment attacking and punishing individual researchers with contentious results - such as the MMR vaccine controversy - has done little to inspire public trust in science."
Her research centred on a year-long qualitative study, interviewing some 30 scientists in Britain and Sweden, all working with issues regarding genetic modification. It was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), under the Science in Society Programme. The results of the study can be summarised as follows:
British scientists viewed controversies as events, caused by pre-existing dissenters within the community.
The Swedish scientists tended to think of controversies as a process, and of fully-fledged 'mavericks' as the dangerous result of a gradual positioning of disenchanted scientists who ended up attacking a community to which they no longer belonged.
British scientists felt it was crucial to avoid giving scientific legitimacy to scientists that they described as 'mavericks' and that their distancing from the scientific community was therefore necessary.
Swedish scientists thought that ousting of dissenting scientists only served to exacerbate problems.
With the exception of university research, mechanisms for control of outgoing material tended to be more elaborate and more strictly followed in Britain, than in Sweden.
British scientists also felt that a breach of procedures would have graver consequences, than did their Swedish peers.
British scientists viewed surveying of outgoing material and communication of research as safety mechanisms in place for their own protection, whereas Swedish interviewees to perceive such procedures as a sign of increasing bureaucracy.
British scientists felt a greater need for claims to be 'watertight', imagining a potentially hostile response.