The goal of science is to uncover truths and create new knowledge. But this is not always welcome. Increasingly , scientific findings are being attacked or downplayed. And scientists themselves face intimidation or harassment.
Authors
- Robert Hales
Director, Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University
- Carolyn Troup
Research Fellow, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University
- David Peetz
Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Future Work, and Professor Emeritus, Griffith Business School, Griffith University
- Georgina Murray
Associate Professor in Humanities, Griffith University
- Ian Lowe
Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University
In our global study of more than 2,000 scientists across six areas of science, two-fifths (41%) of respondents had, as a result of their work, been harassed or intimidated at least once over a five-year period.
Intimidation efforts included online abuse, physical threats, and threats to budgets or employment. Harassment, while personal, could be meted out by superiors, colleagues or outsiders. Some scientists felt their leaders had thrown them under the bus to protect the institution's reputation.
Who's doing the intimidation? Strikingly, a majority of cases of intimidation and harassment actually came from inside the institution for most fields. That is, it was perpetrated by senior colleagues or managers. But for climate scientists, most intimidation efforts came from outside.
Intimidation of scientists doesn't happen in a vacuum. In recent years, there has been a rise in populist leaders who pour scorn on "elites" and evidence. Scientific issues are increasingly politicised . Disinformation is rampant . This atmosphere adds to the pressure faced by scientists, especially those working in politically sensitive areas such as climate science or COVID.
What did we find?
We used an online database of scientists to find and contact experts publishing in six fields: climate science, medical health, humanities and social science, food and plant science, astronomy, and other STEM areas.
More than 2,000 responded to our survey on whether they had experienced various types of intimidation or harassment. We asked respondents for more detail on the perpetrators, what triggered the incident, and what effect it had on them.
Many respondents had a clear view as to what the intimidation or harassment was meant to do. The motivations of perpetrators varied greatly. But the most common reasons were to damage their reputation, to stop them from publishing certain types of research, or to "put me in my place".
Specific fields of science were more prone to harassment and intimidation - in particular climate science, and humanities and social science.
Among those scientists who had been intimidated, climate scientists reported online abuse three times more often than astronomers. Climate science is politically charged, because climate change is clearly linked to pollution from some of the world's largest industries - oil, gas and coal. Astronomy is not. Half of the climate scientist respondents experiencing intimidation saw the bad behaviour as a way to discourage them from undertaking specific research and speaking about it.
Researchers from humanities and social sciences faced similar levels of online abuse to climate scientists.
When it came to personal harassment, there was a clear gender dimension. Among those who reported experiencing harassment, female scientists were more than four times more likely to report "unwelcome or inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature" than their male counterparts. Women were affected almost twice as much as men by non-sexual forms of personal harassment.
Our findings follow earlier research finding similar rates of intimidation. For instance, a 2021 survey of 321 scientists working on COVID-19 found 15% had received death threats and 22% received threats of sexual violence.
Intimidation and harassment are damaging
The consequences of intimidation are profound and far-reaching. Many scientists told us the experience had caused lasting damage, whether to wellbeing, career prospects or research activities.
More than 40% of those affected said their career prospects had worsened following incidents of harassment. Just over a third (34%) reported a decline in their desire to work in science. Scientists who experienced intimidation often cut back their collaboration with colleagues (35%), leaving them more isolated.
Many of our respondents described flow-on effects such as decreased access to funding (35% of respondents) and less public communication from their institution about their work (23%).
Scientists targeted with multiple types of harassment reported very damaging effects, from difficulty finding their next job to poor mental health.
Intimidation slows progress
Intimidation and harassment have a chilling effect on science. This, in turn, could hinder progress on crucial issues such as climate change, public health and technological advancements.
The disproportionate impact on women and researchers in politically sensitive fields threatens to undermine diversity and inclusivity in science.
Without targeted interventions, women in science may continue to suffer disproportionate levels of harassment and intimidation. This will have long-term implications for gender diversity in scientific leadership and the direction of research in various fields.
In the United States, the Trump administration's withdrawals from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization are likely to further embolden anti-science movements. Many American scientific institutions are engaged in anticipatory obedience of the Trump administration's demands that diversity and anti-discrimination programs be abolished, or climate change stop being mentioned. Many even go beyond what is explicitly sought .
What can be done?
Science and academia is often seen as a bastion of free inquiry and open discussion. One of our most surprising findings was how common intimidation was within scientific institutions.
The key to beating intimidation is organisational support and clear strategies, not obedience. These include:
genuine commitment to institutional policies protecting scientists from both internal and external intimidation
formal, well-resourced support systems for researchers facing harassment or pressure ( not the HR office )
programs to increase public understanding of the scientific process to build trust and resilience to misinformation
boosting international collaboration between scientists and policymakers to ensure resilience against country-specific efforts to undermine science
educating the public on the importance of scientific independence and of fostering respectful dialogue around contentious topics.
As populist movements gain traction in many countries, scientists working on controversial issues will face heightened scrutiny - and potentially more intimidation.
Climate science is likely to remain a particularly contested field. As the damage wrought by climate change becomes more and more apparent, it will get even more contentious.
Over the last few centuries, science has produced breakthroughs in many areas. But the integrity of science is not guaranteed. Harassment and intimidation from both inside and outside institutions has a very real effect on scientists.
The future of evidence-based decision-making and ability to tackle global challenges depends on fostering an environment where scientists can work free from fear and undue pressure.
Robert Hale receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
David Peetz undertook research over many years with occasional financial support from governments from both sides of politics, employers and unions. He has been and is involved in several Australian Research Council-funded projects, including this one.
Ian Lowe was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.
Carolyn Troup and Georgina Murray do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
