Non-Conformist_Scientists_'Struggle_to_Be_Heard'

[Guest guest]

> Subject:

> Non-Conformist_Scientists_'Struggle_to_Be_Heard'

 

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:22:19 +0100

 

> GM WATCh daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ---

> 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.

>