Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t TNP, Nick – Could criticism of government science be outlawed? A science journal paper appears to have equated Republican attempts to fire Dr. Fauci with physical intimidation and NAZI oppression of science, and appears to urge that criticism of scientists be considered a hate crime.
Note that the following paper is marked as an “uncorrected proof”.
Mounting antiscience aggression in the United States
Peter J. Hotez
Published: July 28, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369There is a troubling new expansion of antiscience aggression in the United States. It’s arising from far-right extremism, including some elected members of the US Congress and conservative news outlets that target prominent biological scientists fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
A band of ultraconservative members of the US Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent US biological scientists. In parallel, conservative news outlets repeatedly and purposefully promote disinformation designed to portray key American scientists as enemies. As a consequence, many of us receive threats via email and on social media, while some are stalked at home, to create an unprecedented culture of antiscience intimidation.
Over the spring and summer of 2021, four major incidents stand out. First, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) introduced house bill 2316 [1]. The “Fire Fauci Act” called for halting payment of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s salary as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and auditing his digital correspondence and financial transactions. Green’s follow-up press conference on 21 June 2021 included 13 Republican House supporters or co-sponsors, possibly the largest congressional delegation in modern times to single out and attempt to humiliate a prominent American scientist.
…
Historically, such regimes viewed scientists as enemies of the state. In his 1941 essay, Science in the Totalitarian State [10], Waldemar Kaempffert, outlines details using the examples of Nazism under Hitler, Fascism under Mussolini, and Marxism and Leninism [10]. For example, under Stalin, the study of genetics and relativity physics were treated as dangerous western theories, and potentially in conflict with official social philosophies of state [11]. Today, there remain examples of authoritarian regimes that hold similar views. In 2019, the Hungarian Government under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán took over the control of the Hungarian Academy of Scientists. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro cut funding for Brazilian scientific institutions and universities while downplaying the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic or undermining evidence of deforestation in the Amazon due to climate change.
…
For researchers working in the pandemic response to continue to do so effectively, we seek help in halting the aggression. This is essential not only for our personal safety or national security, but also the reality that attacking science and scientists will both promote illness and cause loss of life. For example, currently more than 99% of the COVID-19 deaths now occur among unvaccinated people, and almost as many hospitalizations. To begin, the following steps must be considered:
- The President of the United States, together with science leaders at the federal agencies should prepare and deliver a robust, public, and highly visible statement of support. The statement would reaffirm the contribution of scientists across United States history.
- We should look at expanded protection mechanisms for scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) has introduced a bill known as the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 (H.R. 849) to protect US Government scientists from political interference, but this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes. Still another possibility is to extend federal hate-crime protections.
…
Read more: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369#pbio.3001369.ref001 (PDF backup copy here)
I’ll never forget a description I once read of a US scientist who visited an academy in a South American country. After he delivered his speech, and asked for questions, nobody put their hand up. When he later asked one of the students why, the student explained that asking questions is rude.
I’m totally against scientists being physically intimidated, regardless of what anyone thinks of their scientific conduct. But scientific progress absolutely depends on the unfettered right of anyone to verbally challenge scientific claims, and verbally criticise the conduct of scientists.
Robust criticism is the only means we have to expose pseudoscience, especially when the pseudoscience is backed by politicians and scientific institutions, something which has happened way too often throughout modern history.
NAZIs, Soviets, all of them had their own politically convenient collection of scientific “truths”, which were vigorously defended, not by evidence and open discourse, but by harsh government laws designed to punish critics.
Free speech, a right to criticise, also gives us an opportunity to discover and and object to unethical scientific experiments.
The measures Peter Hotez is proposing in my opinion risk creating the authoritarian nightmare he claims to oppose.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369.g001
And they are accusing others of being NAZIs– look at the figure.
“Days later, the medical director for vaccines in the Tennessee Department of Health was abruptly terminated for her efforts to vaccinate minors (14 and up) without parental consent. ” And who are the dictators? The hell with parents?
That’s insane and is consistent with some kind of dishonest scientific paranoia.
“Free speech, a right to criticise, also gives us an opportunity to discover and and object to unethical scientific experiments.”
Yes. But also the opposite: free speech, as we are currently seeing, can also give opportunity to perform unethical experiments.
The question is out of focus: in democratic societies, scientists have no power, although they can have influence. But, in democratic societies, this influence must rely on elected politicians to become rules for the society. And that is the critical point: not limiting free speech and free discussion of ideas among scientists, nor criminalizing ideas as long as they are mere formulations and not actions. But, YES, assign responsibility to the ones who have it, who are endowed to have it and to act: the elected polititians. Because they are ignorant, because they are not critical when evaluating the available information provided by scientists, because they do not care to hear scientists with diverse opinions about the same subject, because they are incapable of selecting advisers that are well prepared and independent, because they are careless and rush to take decisions, because they ignore the subsequent information that invalidates their decisions, etc. It is them who have the power, it is them who enforce laws and regulations, it is them who are responsible.
Peter Hotez has his logic in a twist. Take his reference to Stalin. The whole reason why Lysenkoism could flourish under Stalin’s dictatorship was because it was NOT allowed to criticise that pseudo scientist. Hardly an example to support Peter’s position.
And you know that “protection” wouldn’t extend to any scientist who questions the CAGW religion
Fauci is political. He has changed directions many times and flipped back and forth. He is making his decisions based on political opinion or he would only change his mind one time. Masks have been useless, they have been a life saver, then they were useless again and now they are a life saver again. Also he ignores the studies from universities that say the us of hydroxychloroquine and zink would have saved about 1/2 of those who died on ventilators.
explain to me how financing virus enhancement is following the science.
Looking at numbers from US states with mask mandates vs those without, it’s clear that masking doesn’t do a damn thing.
The slipperiest slope of all is when government bureaucrats are allowed to determine what is truth, and what isn’t. When I see words like “ ultraconservative members of the US Congress“, “conservative news outlets repeatedly and purposefully promote disinformation”, and comparisons with “Nazi Germany”, it tells me that the author of these words, not the target, that is the true purveyor of hate. It is they who need be feared, not those who seek truth.
It’s dangerous that in an “emergency,” agencies like the CDC can dictate policy and law bureaucratically, representative government and rule of law be damned.
I’ve always been amazed at how those who preach the loudest on the need for tolerance, have absolutely no tolerance themselves.
“NAZIs, Soviets, all of them had their own politically convenient collection of scientific “truths”, which were vigorously defended, not by evidence and open discourse, but by harsh government laws designed to punish critics.” – article
You left out the Pope and how he mistreated Galileo, who refused to kowtow to the incorrect and Church-approved notion that the universe revolves around the Earth, and said so out loud. (That’s the short version, the real story is longer and quite sordid.)
Oppression of ideas and beliefs is not something new. The “truths” about global warming versus normal weather are simply another expression of a belief system that feels threatened, and is trying desperately to acquire the power to shut down opposing views. How very Medieval of them!
I may think Fauci is a vainglorious ass for valid reasons, and I will say so out loud, but telling me I do not have the right to say so, or to tell the ecohippies that they are potty-mouthed nutballs, and threaten me (or anyone else) with silencing is W-R-O-N-G, period.
I’m wondering how long that myth about the Pope and Galileo will live?
Galileo was not punished for preaching the theory of a helio-centric solar system.
He was punished for teaching it as a proven fact, when at the time, it still hadn’t been.
He was also punished for ridiculing the Pope, who until that time had been a supporter of his.
In an enlightened world, neither of those things would be punishable. Regardless, Galileo was not punished for believing in a helio-centric solar system.
The church was in fact in the process of investigating whether the sun was the center of the solar system and would in not too many years accept the helio-centric view as the scientifically correct one.
What you are saying is he was punished for publicly stating what he knew to be true. They told him he could believe whatever he wished, as long as he didn’t tell anyone else about it. But that’s what true scientists do; they make discoveries, and they publicize them. Which then lets others try to prove/disprove their findings.
Just don’t challenge us….
“The church was in fact in the process of investigating whether the sun was the center of the solar system” which is why they were so interested in hearing Galileo’s discoveries…
Not….
Wrong on all counts, and nowhere close to what I said.
First off Galileo could have believed in the Helio-centric theory, but he couldn’t know that it was true because it hadn’t been proven yet.
If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have realized that I said that wasn’t punished for saying something the church disagreed with. It was more how he said it, and the fact that he insulted powerful people in the process.
Just because you are wedded to your myth of choice is not proof that I am wrong.
If you want to argue against what I wrote, then do so. Don’t change what I wrote and then argue against it.
Secondly, just proclaiming that I am wrong, may impress you, but it’s hardly convincing.
I’ll stop criticizing scientists when they stop making mistakes.
You’re asking them to not be human?
The problem isn’t scientists making mistakes, it’s not owning up to the mistakes, and learning from them. Or, in the case of Mann and the Hockey Team, outright obfuscation and fraud masquerading as science that so many refuse to call out.
“It’s arising from far-right extremism, including some elected members of the US Congress and conservative news outlets “
This is BS. the far-right has nothing to do with disagreeing with politically skewed and false “science.” Just because Fauci claims to “follow the science,” it not only does not validates what he is saying, but it is a red flag that he is probably lying. Real science does not need a cheerleader.
“The other person is a very close friend of mine. John, I think this is sort of mischievous with this thing going around. I had my mask around my chin, I had taken it down. I was totally dehydrated and I was drinking water trying to rehydrate myself. And by the way, I was negative Covid literally the day before.
So I guess if people want to make a thing of that, I wear a mask all the time when I’m outside. To pull it down, to take some sips of water, and put it back up again, I guess if people want to make something about that, they can. But to me, I think that’s just mischievous.”
Well that was predictable.
You certainly are a good little sheep.
Do you have any evidence that anything less than a properly fitted N95 mask has any effect on transmission of any airborne virus?
As others have commented re: the vaccines vs. Ivermectin, until the FDA and WHO issue at least an EUA for Ivermectin, I will have a hard time justifying getting a vaccine. I will instead follow the I-MASK+ protocol shown on the FLCCC website. Just a simple summary re: Ivermectin. It was first used in 1988 on humans to treat Onchocerciasis, or river blindness and has since been found to be an effective treatment for a wide variety of diseases. It has been administered over 3.7 billion times with few if any serious side effects. The developers received the Nobel Peace Prize for Medicine in 2015 due to it’s use in eradicating River Blindness. It has strong anti-viral and anti-inflamatory properties and has been used successfully in several countries as both a prophylaxis and treatment for all stages of COVID-19. While it, like any treatment, is not 100% (just like the vaccines are not 100%) effective, the outcomes are dramatically improved when using Ivermectin. For those unaware, the best source of information is the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, website https://covid19criticalcare.com/. Another paper, published back in 2011, speaks to Ivermectin as a wonder drug: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/. Sadly, naysayers of Ivermectin refer to it as an animal drug – which it is, as that was the original use, and it is still used today on animals, but it’s use on humans is the reason for the Nobel Peace Prize. That the FDA and WHO use words like “potentially Dangerous” and refuse to give EUA status is frankly criminal in my mind. It is an effective treatment and should be used extensively. Problem is, it is cheap, so big pharma and Fauci can’t make as much money off of it.
It is because of government that Scientists NEED Public Criticism.
Pete Hotez appears to be speaking on behalf of Lysenko, Stalin, Mao and authoritarian regimes everywhere who decide what “correct science” is (whatever supports the regime’s agenda) and then censor or suppress any real science or debate that doesn’t conform. The “protections” he supports are just one step on the slippery slope towards disappearances and executions of those who don’t support the party line as happened in Stalinist USSR and China under Mao.
History repeating.
I believe it’s known as “confession through projection”. The Democrats have been doing it for years. Both Pelosi and Biden hinted several times that the fix was in before the election.
Ever notice how in the lexicon of the communist, there are no conservatives. Everyone is far-right, fringe right, ultra conservative, etc.
Yes, they try to portray conservatives as extremists at every opportunity. It’s a smoke screen to try to deflect attention from their own extremism.
It’s also a result of the echo chamber that most liberals live in.
It’s liberals who refuse to interact with anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s liberals who demand that anyone who doesn’t follow the party line is to be shunned, fired, cancelled.
As a result, liberals come to believe that everyone, or at least everyone who matters agrees with them. They honestly believe that they are in the political middle, mostly because they are blind to anyone who disagrees with them.
On the other hand conservatives live in a world that is flooded with liberal propaganda. We get it day in, day out from the media, from the movies, and even from the music we listen to.
Conservatives know that liberals are out there and as a result we get experienced at shooting down liberal nonsense.
Liberals on the other hand are lousy at defending their ideas, because they are never asked to.
Is there any nut case conspiracy theory that you don’t believe in?
David has done several posts on the peak oil and demonstrated conclusively that we are decades at a minimum away from it.
What does libs dying have to do with peak oil?
As to peak oil being past, you can believe anything you want. However if you want other people to believe you, you have to present some real world data.
You presented the chart as proof of peak oil. John shows that the chart doesn’t show what you claim it does.
Your come back is that it doesn’t matter, because you are still right.
Your constant changing of the subject as well as your utter inability to deal with counter arguments just reinforces the belief that you have no connection with reality, and don’t want any.
And by anyone who still has a passing relationship with reality.
Fine, we will all just carry Black Lies Matter signs and they can not touch us, problem solved.
It was Newt Gingrich who said free speech is offensive speech. There would be no need to guarantee freedom of speech for polite and friendly speech. And as stated in the article there is no science without criticism. That can be extended to academic freedom.
Suppressing free speech only allows the inept, the liar and the crook to succeed.
In the above article’s introduction, Eric Worrall states: “A science journal paper appears to . . .”
As revealed in the link to the referenced “paper”, the publication comes from PLOS Biology and here are a few interesting facts about this “journal” and its own stated purpose and submittal review conditions (ref: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/journal-information )
“PLOS Biology publishes significant advances across the biological sciences.
“. . . we’re transforming research communication to fit the research process.
“Portable peer review. We consider manuscripts on the basis of reviews received at other journals . . .
“Consideration of complementary research. Although originality is an important criterion for studies published in PLOS Biology, the journal depressurizes the publication process by accepting submissions that confirm, replicate, extend, or are complementary to a recently published significant advance.”
So, in fact, first we have a “journal” devoted to the biological sciences publishing a “paper” that has “Perspective” in smallest font size in the upper left corner of its title page. That alone warns the careful reader to not expect to find science-based information in this publication . . . and in fact the referenced “paper” is little more than a political diatribe.
Second, what the heck does “. . . we’re transforming research communication to fit the research process” mean? It sounds dangerously close “we know of a better way to communicate research results than what has worked in the past” . . . what dangers might lay within such an attitude?
Lastly, but perhaps most significantly, PLOS Biology‘s above-stated manner of “depressurizing” the publication process by “accepting submissions that confirm, replicate, extend, or are complementary to a recently published significant advance” basically translates to welcoming submittals that support the confirmation bias of PLOS Biology‘s reviewers and editors. In fact, such wording is directly in conflict with the prefacing phase “Although originality is an important criterion for studies published in PLOS Biology . . .”
Clearly, one should not look to PLOS Biology for any controversial, let alone “beakthrough”, reporting in the field of biology science.
From the above, I conclude the “paper” that is the subject of Eric Worrall’s above article is not based on any science and is just so much political fluff.
A crime by its very nature is not committed out of love. The concept of a Hate Crime is completely subjective and enforced by the very same scoundrels. bureaucrats all, that posits such nonsense in the first place.
They would need to call any such proposed law the “Get around the First Amendment to block political opposition and hoodwink a hive-minded population of public school graduates Act.” to honestly represent its intent.
Doesn’t exactly roll of the tongue, does it.
Hundred Authors against Einstein.
There, all the arguments you need.
Einstein himsef replied: Why a hundred? You only need 1 experiment to prove me wrong.
Hate Crime does noet exist. It’s a coping mechanism for people who are not capable of understanding their own convictions. Sad really
I agree fully. I’ve never heard of a “Love crime”. If what the person said was criminal, then it was just a specific crime. “Hate crime” is just too unspecific leading to the judge to make up his own.
Crime of passion?
I had thought of that … then realized passion isn’t necessarily synonymous with love. One could just as easily be passionate about hating 🙂
Right, but it could be due to obsessive love. So either way. 😉
If you aren’t allowed to question something then you’re dealing with religion, not science.
Looking at the bills being proposed lately, and the names of them – Ayn Rand got it right.
“…expansion of antiscience aggression in the United States. It’s arising from far-right extremism, including …”
It’s really arising because of the crescendo of cargo cult, incompetent and politically agendized science. You don’t have to shut people up. Words are not sticks and stones. Einstein had much much worse because the ‘mob’ were fellow scientists! His being a jew was also part of it.
I think ‘social justice’ would best be served if the large numbers of knowledgeable sceptical scientists who have been vilified, blocked from publication, insulted, misrepresented, threatened and removed from their jobs by asterisked PhDs in the Clime Syndicate (thanks for the colorful term to Mark Steyn) should be the first hate crime cases to be heard. Idiot designer
-brained academic bullies.