Read on Twitter
I believe that claims that scientists make need to stand up to scrutiny, especially in the midst of a pandemic, where scientists have an ethical duty to inform accurately. Calling out false claims is not the same as trolling & harassing someone because they disagree with you.
During the past many weeks, I've engaged with scientists when I felt they made claims that were not in line with current evidence. I usually do this by first contacting the scientist directly & discussing why evidence cited may be flawed, &/or providing direct evidence against.
In my experience, this approach has not worked. Inevitably, it has led to people claiming personal attacks, which means they don't have to engage on the evidence. So evidence-based discussions don't happen, and discussions get shut down.
Unfortunately, another 'side effect' of this approach has been targeted and coordinated bullying. I have realised over time that there is a clique of scientists who target others who discuss any evidence that disagrees with their views.
Often these views are ones that minimise risks without evidence (potentially the most dangerous stance in a pandemic to be wrong on), and when evidence is present that disagrees with these views, it is labelled as uncertain, or flawed.
Scientists who express concerns about these risks are often attacked as being 'alarmist', or poor science communicators. These attacks can be entirely unprovoked and without obvious cause.
I recently wrote a thread on evidence around school transmission. I was made aware of a discussion among 'colleagues' who without any engagement or provocation cited my thread as 'an example of poor scicomm' that they would use in their 'teaching slides' as how not to communicate
I only saw this when it was brought to my attention by someone else who had been targeted by the same people. It was rather surprising to be targeted in this way by someone with a huge platform who I had been told was a respected scientist & colleague, without any engagement.
When I engaged to asked for specific suggestions as to how I could improve communication on the thread, I received no response. The thread referenced in the tweet is below. You can judge for yourself if it's a poor scicomm that should be used in teaching. https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1346362159446577154?s=20
Recently, another colleague was labelled 'alarmist' after discussing factual data on a twitter thread for no obvious reason. And when challenged on this, the people involved didn't apologise, but rather suggested this was an attack on them.
I have since become aware of many colleagues who have been targeted by this group. The attacks are coordinated & personal. I have had the unpleasant experience of people reaching out to friends to try & isolate & gaslight me through people I care about & consider close friends.
But this surreptitious way of gaslighting, where these individuals often play the victim, and bullying is done through a circle of colleagues & by making personal attacks through private messaging of close friends makes it very difficult to call this behaviour out.
This behaviour also ensures that false narratives spread by the group remain unchallenged given the huge personal cost of challenging these publicly. It means that evidenced narratives become fringe, as it is very difficult to maintain resilience against the coordinated bullying.
Often these scientists build close relationships with media journalists & editors at medical journals who then see these individuals as experts, and repeatedly platform their views. This also means that anyone presenting a view that challenges this is seen as questionable.
False narratives then become entrenched even among the scientific community, and changing these narratives can be much harder after this, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Claims can be made with little evidence because the narrative is now pervasive.
Why are these groups so invested in maintaining these narratives? Perhaps it is terrifying to face the fact that narratives they have promoted that have minimised risks may have significantly impacted people's lives. Perhaps that feels like too much of a threat to consider.
But, if you have espoused a view that has already had such a huge cost to people's lives, why would you persist with that solely to defend your position & reputation?
Bullying colleagues into silence is unacceptable, and I will call this out when I see this happening.
Bullying colleagues into silence is unacceptable, and I will call this out when I see this happening.
Making mistakes is costly at this point - so it's important to be cautious. But if mistakes were made, acknowledging them & being honest builds trust, and respect. And stops harms from being further perpetuated. Experts are not infallible & they don't need to pretend to be.
