[Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression

[John Grehan]

For those interested (and some hopefully concerned) in this matter, below
is the text of a letter recently sent to the Royal Society of NZ.

Dear Mr. Atkins,

I write concerning the complaint submitted by Dr. Mahlfeld regarding the
ethics issues arising from the publication of a paper by Waters et al.
(2013). The paper called explicitly for editors to suppress publication of
panbiogeography, a research program in evolutionary biology that was
largely developed in New Zealand and has become widely used around the
world. The paper was written by eight authors, four of whom are members of
the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

The Society appointed a panel to consider the complaint, but this panel
itself was heavily biased and included at least one long-term opponent of
our research. I am shocked that the Society leadership accepted the panel’s
conclusion that there was nothing unethical about the call by Waters et al.
for suppression of panbiogeography. That the Society could feel comfortable
with this stance is beyond comprehension, and it makes a mockery of the
Society's claim that “We support New Zealanders to explore, discover and
share knowledge.”

The Royal Society Te Apārangi has effectively given its members carte
blanche to call for the suppression of any science that they don't like.
Why not, for example, call for the suppression of Māori science? I find
this situation incomprehensible, and frankly disgusting.

In their review, the Panel members further defamed the scientific status
and integrity of panbiogeography and its proponents by asserting that “The
term panbiogeography in a scientific paper is more of a signifier of group
identity than a statement of methodological or theoretical approach.” This
is completely untrue, as testified by the explicit and detailed
descriptions of methodology in a wide range of scientific books and
journals, published by leading institutions such as Oxford University,
Cambridge University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

The episode has undermined the scientific integrity and credibility of the
Society. Why would anyone, private or government, wish to continue funding
a supposedly scientific organization that supports the suppression of
science? It’s a total disgrace.