For Fear of Attack by Extremists
by MikeGeneImagine what it would be like if someone else was to blame for this situation:
Susan (not her real name) is not just ex-directory. The name she is known by at work cannot be found on the electoral roll, and she has done her best to delete it from mailing lists of all kinds. As an animal researcher, you can't be too careful, she says.
Most of her family do not know exactly how she has spent the past 17 years in the lab. "I wish I could be more open about it. I wish I had the courage to be," she says. "I would love to tell people the fascinating things I have found out through my research. But some people will never understand my work, however much I might justify it as ultimately helping humans." Now that Susan is a mother of two, she is even more careful to ensure animal rights activists do not get their hands on her contact details.
Jackie (also not her real name) will not read any scientific paper on animal research on the tube, or talk about her rodent experiments outside her home. "You don't know who might be sitting at the next table. I don't want to put those I am close to in a potentially dangerous position," she says. "I have been doing animal-based pharmacology research for 30 years, and have always been advised to be cautious about whom I talk to."
They actually feel they have to hide their science. It really is a shame how a certain cyber-community can rally its forces to defend against the evils of a Bill Dembski or a Francis Collins, while abandoning Susan and Jackie to the real world.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Are you surprised though ? It is easy to pick on people who will just turn the other cheek, it takes real guts to defend the practice of science from people who will push back.
It would seem that we have a lot of bullies and cowards in the "pro-science" crowd. Who is actually surprised by this ?
Comment by thesciphishow — February 20, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
February 21st, 2007 at 6:11 am
Hi schiphi,
I don't think it has much to do with being intimidated. What we do know, thanks to the anti-religious movement, is that many (most?) ID critics are evangelical atheists. Thus, it would make sense for them to inflate the "threat" of ID and ignore the threat of the animal rights movement. Such critics are not "defending science," they are, in their minds, doing battle against Christianity.
Remember, the father of the animal rights movement is Peter Singer. Do you think that someone like Peter Singer would comfortably fit within the "pro-science" blog community or be an outsider? I'd say it is the former. My guess is that the many of those who posture as "pro-science" have significant sympathy for the animal rights movement. Thus, since the animal rights movement cannot be viewed as a proxy for Christianity, and is probably admired to some extent, overall, the "pro-science" blog community will not defend scientists nor criticize the animal rights movement.
Of course, if true, this is simply more evidence that the "pro-science" posturing is just that "“ posturing.
Comment by MikeGene — February 21, 2007 @ 6:11 am