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

[JF Mate]

But John, the RSNZ has no power over them and they sure as hell can't
punish them. Do you think the solution is a punitive scientific society? We
have already talked about this before in situations regarding taxonomic
malpractice and the powers of the ICZN. In both cases they are not cops nor
judges and you don't want them to either. The article is a POV, write a
counterargument which is the proper way to address this. Or ignore them,
which is what I did with your ending dig ;)

J

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 13:01, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> 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 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.
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>>
>