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

[John Grehan]

Hi Geoff. To me the statement " some editorial and review
processes continue to allow this misleading approach to be promulgated as a
useful scientific method."  is clearly an objection to panbiogeography
being published at all. That is definitely a call for suppression and
censorship (and leaves no doubt that if they were editors they would do
just that). To read this in any other way would be like interpreting
Donald's call for an insurrection as a 'wild' tourist visit.

Cheers, John

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:06 AM Geoff Read via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  Hi John,
>
> I thought Waters et al's three or so comments involving journals were
> unfortunate, for example this one "some editorial and review processes
> continue to allow this misleading approach to be promulgated as a useful
> scientific method." If they had only said "this misleading approach is not
> a useful method" they would have been safe from misinterpretation, and
> their opponents would have had nothing to work with for an indirect
> attack.
>
> However, while my view is they overstepped the mark slightly, they only
> expressed concern, and did not go on to say 'journals should not publish
> this work', so there was no call for suppression or censorship. That
> appears to be a wording someone made up.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
> On Thu, August 12, 2021 3:00 pm, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Sure they are free to do so. Point is that they do so. Their paper is
> > historically significant as an open admission that they would like to see
> > suppression or censorship of an opposing research program and the NZ
> Royal
> > Society has subsequently accepted that approach to science as
> > compatible with their ethics principles. Of course anyone is free to call
> > for suppression and censorship in science, but it's not something I find
> > acceptable, whether or not directed to a research field with which I have
> > sympathy. Even though I think most of the dispersalist biogeography is a
> > load of junk I would never engage in efforts to suppress or censor
> > opportunities for supporters to publish.
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 9:29 PM JF Mate via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> The authors (Water et al 2013) are free to call for rejection of
> >> panbiogeography papers but since its publication panbiogeography papers
> >> have continued to be published. I don't understand what you want the
> >> panel
> >> to do, punish the author's? Sure, calling for banning raises an eyebrow
> >> but
> >> you can't suppress them. You can argue against them.
> >>
> >> J
> >>
> >> On Tue., 10 Aug. 2021, 09:17 John Grehan via Taxacom, <
> >> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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 ApÄ rangi (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 ApÄ rangi (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
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
> Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
> gread at actrix.gen.nz
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>