Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics.

The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.

Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science.

Approaches, values, and perceptions in invasion science are highly dynamic, and like in other disciplines, views among different people can diverge. This has led to debate in the field specifically surrounding the core themes of values, management, impacts, and terminology. Considering these debates, we surveyed 698 scientists and practitioners globally to assess levels of polarization (opposing views) on core and contentious topics. The survey was distributed online (via Google Forms) and promoted through listservs and social media. Although there were generally high levels of consensus among respondents, there was some polarization (scores of ≥0.39 [top quartile]). Relating to values, there was high polarization regarding claims of invasive species denialism, whether invasive species contribute to biodiversity, and how biodiversity reporting should be conducted. With regard to management, there were polarized views on banning the commercial use of beneficial invasive species, the extent to which stakeholders' perceptions should influence management, whether invasive species use alone is an appropriate control strategy, and whether eradication of invasive plants is possible. For impacts, there was high polarization concerning whether invasive species drive or are a side effect of degradation and whether invasive species benefits are understated. For terminology, polarized views related to defining invasive species based only on spread, whether species can be labeled as invasive in their native ranges, and whether language used is too xenophobic. Factor and regression analysis revealed that views were particularly divergent between people working on different invasive taxa (plants and mammals) and in different disciplines (between biologists and social scientists), between academics and practitioners, and between world regions (between Africa and the Global North). Unlike in other studies, age and gender had a limited influence on response patterns. Better integration globally and between disciplines, taxa, and sectors (e.g., academic vs. practitioners) could help build broader understanding and consensus.

Los enfoques, valores y percepciones en el campo de las invasiones biológicas son muy dinámicos, y como en otras disciplinas científicas, los expertos pueden tener distintas opiniones. Esto ha creado debates, especialmente sobre temas relacionados con valores, gestión, impactos y terminología. Considerando estos debates, encuestamos a 698 científicos y gestores de todo el mundo para evaluar sus niveles de polarización (opiniones opuestas) sobre una serie de temas fundamentales y polémicos. La encuesta fue distribuida a través de internet (a través de Google Forms) y promovida por medio de listas de correo electrónico y redes sociales. Aunque, en general, hubo consenso entre los encuestados, hubo cierta polarización (puntuaciones de ≥ 0.39 [cuartil más alto]). En relación con valores, hubo una gran polarización sobre aquellas declaraciones relacionadas con el negacionismo de especies invasoras, si las especies invasoras contribuyen a aumentar la biodiversidad y cómo se deberían llevar a cabo los informes sobre biodiversidad. En relación con la gestión, hubo opiniones polarizadas sobre la prohibición del uso comercial de especies invasoras beneficiosas, si la opinión de las partes interesadas debería influir en la gestión, si el uso de especies invasoras por sí solo es una estrategia de control adecuada y si la erradicación de plantas invasoras es factible. En cuanto a impactos, hubo gran polarización en cuanto a sí las especies invasoras conducen a o son un efecto lateral de la degradación de ecosistemas y ssi los beneficios de las especies invasoras están subestimados. En cuanto a terminología, encontramos opiniones polarizadas relacionadas con definir especies invasoras exclusivamente en base a su expansión, si las especies se pueden considerar invasoras en sus rangos de distribución nativos y si el lenguaje utilizado en el campo de las invasiones biológicas es xenofóbico. Los análisis factoriales y de regresión revelaron que las opiniones de los expertos encuestados fueron particularmente divergentes entre personas que trabajan con diferentes taxones (plantas y mamíferos) en diferentes disciplinas (entre biólogos y sociólogos), entre científicos y gestores y entre regiones del mundo (entre países de África y del hemisferio Norte). A diferencia de otros estudios, la edad y el género tuvieron una influencia limitada sobre lass respuestas obtenidas. Una mejor integración global y entre disciplinas, taxones y sectores (o. e., investigadores vs. gestores) podría contribuir a alcanzar un mayor entendimiento y consenso.

Emergence of a techno-legal specialty: Animal tests to assess chemical safety in the UK, 1945-1960.

It has been suggested that knowledge domains which emerge within regulatory science represent a compromise between technical knowledge and policy priorities. This article investigates the claim through consideration of the emergence of animal tests to evaluate chemical safety in the UK between 1945 and 1960. During this period there was a proliferation of new chemical-based innovations in consumer products. The situation gave rise to concerns about the potential impact on public health. Solutions required development of a knowledge domain that would fulfil policy requirements, outside the remit of academic science. Lack of consensus in the scientific field gave rise to debate over the best means to collect accurate data. This resulted in emergence of the new specialty of safety testing, in response to political and industrial needs. The socio-political context of this case illustrates the impact that organisational setting can have on shaping knowledge claims.

Las pautas para el debate científico: reflexiones a raíz de una controversia sobre la energía piramidal / Rules for scientific debate: reflections derived from pyramidal energy controversy

Desde hace unos años se han venido divulgando en la prensa y en algunos enclaves científicos cubanos las propiedades y beneficios-especialmente como recurso terapéutico- de la llamada energía piramidal calificada como asombrosa por parte de sus propios divulgadores. El tema ha dado lugar a algunas expresiones de aprensión o de crítica directa, con lo cual se abrieron las puertas a una polémica científica. Lamentablemente, esta no siempre se ha desarrollado siguiendo las pautas más generalmente aceptadas en el marco de la ciencia. Nuestro propósito no es intervenir en la controversia propiamente dicha sino contribuir a robustecer la cultura científica general, de la cual, la capacidad para el debate científico racional, es parte crucial. El uso de un lenguaje transparente, el intercambio razonado de argumentos que respete el hilo lógico de la discusión, la integridad y rigor a la hora de realizar citas y la responsabilidad que contraen los científicos, tanto al hacer propuestas novedosas como al enjuiciarlas, son algunos de los aspectos sobre los que el presente trabajo procura reflexionar.

For some years, news have been spread in the Cuban press and some scientific milieus about the properties and benefits - particularly as a therapeutic resource - of the so-called pyramidal energy, which is deemed to be astonishing by its own promoters. The topics have prompted reactions of apprehension or open criticism, which in turn have paved the way for scientific debate. Unfortunately, this debate has not always been conducted according to generally accepted rules in the realm of science. Our objective is not to intervene in this controversy, but to contribute to strengthen the general scientific culture of which the capacity for rational scientific debate is a key component. The use of a transparent language, the reasoned exchange of arguments along a logical path of discussion, the integrity and rigor in quoting references and the responsibility that scientists acquire when they either make or judge innovative proposals are some of the aspects that this paper is meant to reflect on.