[Taxacom] [EXT] Re: NZ Royal Society fails to object to suppression and censorship of science

[John Grehan]

Mary,

this is not about rejection of a paper. This was about the Society
establishing a Panel to respond to a complaint that some of their members
acted in ways contrary to their ethics by calling for suppression and
censorship of a research program they opposed (that research program being
panbiogeography). That panel found nothing wrong with their members calling
for suppression or censorship and the Society leadership did not contest
that finding and has taken no further action. Thus, I am correct that the
Royal Society of New Zealand has failed to object to calls by some of its
members for censorship and suppression of panbiogeography. Thus the Royal
Society of NZ effectively endorsed that view no matter how anyone may wish
to parse that.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 6:46 PM Mary Barkworth via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> A panel to evaluate a complaint is a far cry from "[endorsing] calls for
> suppression and censorship as being compatible with the Society's ethics
> policy. It simply means that if someone wants to complain about rejection
> of their manuscript or whatever, their complaint will be reviewed by a
> panel rather than being automatically accepted, dismissed, or referred to
> the same individual who made the decision that is being appealed.
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of John
> Grehan via Taxacom
> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 4:33 PM
> To: Peter A Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu>
> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Taxacom] NZ Royal Society fails to object to
> suppression and censorship of science
>
> I mentioned earlier that I would provide the R Soc Panel document to
> anyone who asks (and will send to Peter next). Point is that the Society
> set up the panel to 'evaluate' a complaint. The Panel denied any conflict
> with the Society's ethics and recommended no further action. That is the
> Society conclusion. Thus the Society, through its Panel, has effectively
> endorsed calls for suppression and censorship as being compatible with the
> Society's ethics policy.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 6:18 PM Peter A Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > John pointed to the published paper by Waters et al., Syst. Biol., as
> > the stimulus for his comments, and states [*emphasis* mine]:
> >
> > "... now the Royal Society Te Apārangi (New Zealand) has trashed its
> > slogan "We support New Zealanders to explore, discover and share
> > knowledge" *by providing endorsement of suppression and censorship by
> > their members through a Panel that concluded that there was nothing
> > wrong for their members to do this*.
> >
> > I'm still missing the point he apparently wants to make (about the
> > RSTA's
> > Panel) because I don't know (John didn't provide?) what that Panel
> > actually wrote ("concluded"), nor what the RSTA wrote (to "endorse"
> > the Panel's "conclusions").
> >
> > Peter R
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 3:06 PM John Grehan via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Some of you may recall that some years ago several researchers
> >> published a paper in Systematic Biology in which they called for the
> >> suppression and censorship of a research program they opposed. That
> >> they felt it was OK for scientists to openly admit to such practices
> >> is shocking enough, but now the Royal Society Te Apārangi (New
> >> Zealand) has trashed its slogan "We support New Zealanders to
> >> explore, discover and share knowledge" by providing endorsement of
> >> suppression and censorship by their members through a Panel that
> >> concluded that there was nothing wrong for their members to do this.
> >> Perhaps others on Taxacome feel the same way,  that it is OK  for
> >> scientists to actively engage in suppression. To me it is horrifying,
> >> but perhaps I am in an ethical minority. Boggles the mind.
> >>
> >> John Grehan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992
> can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of USU. If this appears to be
> a USU employee, beware of impersonators. Do not click links, reply,
> download images, or open attachments unless you verify the sender’s
> identity and know the content is safe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>