In the two years that the pandemic lasted, the scientific community increased its media visibility and in the face of public opinion, by the demand for information about the crisis caused by covid-19. This meant that, at the same time, some of them were, from the beginning, subject to denial attacksand those who believe that the virus was created intentionally to cause harm or that vaccines are dangerous.
In October 2021, Nature published a report in which it was pointed out that 81% of the 321 scientists they contacted and who spoke to the media declared that they had received at least occasional personal attacks to denounce the pandemic.
Now, the writing team of Science brings to light yet another work in which it reveals the experience of researchers who, without being media, published studies on covid-19.
We wanted to know what these problems looked like in scientists who had little or no media coverage and in those who were active on social media without appearing in traditional media.
“The most important difference with the previous study of Nature is the sample type. In this work, researchers who appeared on media lists dealing with the issue of covid-19 in several countries were surveyed, in addition to others who were highlighted in media coverage”, he tells SINC. Cathleen O’Gradycollaborator of Sciencewho was responsible for the design, data analysis and writing of the theme.
Instead, he adds, “we wanted to know what those problems were like in the case of scientists who have had less or no media coverageand that of those who worked on social networks, without standing out in traditional media”.
the metascientist Tim Errington advised on the process, research methods and statistical analysis. For your part, Martin Enserinkthe magazine’s international news editor, contributed editorially.
anonymous results
To start the investigation, they launched an online survey to 9,585 researchers representing a wide range of disciplines, to which a total of 510 responded. The result was that 38% reported at least one type of attack.
“We obtained a larger sample than the survey of Nature, and we included scientists with and without much public attention. Because we asked a very different group of people about their experiences, our results are different,” explains O’Grady.
As the collection and subsequent publication could put participants at risk, we wanted to make sure we were doing things carefully and ethically.
The job also required ethical reviewthrough the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY).
“The research collected data that could be used to identify people. For example, you can see all the responses someone has given to the survey and find out who that person is, even if they didn’t provide their name or email address. Because collection and later publication could put participants at risk, and because the survey asked people to describe difficult and even traumatic experiences, we wanted to make sure we were doing things carefully and ethically,” he adds.
Intense bullying is in the minority
Another difference that it presents in relation to the previous work is the type of questions asked. “We focused on the types of public attention the researchers experienced and the frequency of each type of attention they reported. We asked more questions about types of bullying that people have experienced, and the frequency and onset. We do not ask about your experience with the media, that the survey of Nature” argues O’Grady.
Only a small minority experienced intense levels of harassment and most did not report such an experience. On the other hand, at least 10% of harassed researchers received legal support (7%), technology (8%), safety (5%) or mental health (6%) from their employers. Some argue that increased attention to new victims could be the catalyst for institutions to finally pay attention to the problem.
The authors emphasize in the text that their conclusions should be taken with caution. “We can only draw conclusions about our research sample. We don’t know the reasons why some other people chose not to respond. For example, they may be younger than average, or they may be more exposed to the media and so have chosen not to.
Of the total, 20 of them belonged to Spanish institutionsalthough the journal did not analyze the results by country.
Most participants received such harassment through twitter or email and the research also looked at when this persecution began. “Few of them said it started recently (within the last 6 months or less). This result means that, for most researchers who reported bullying, it has been going on for a year or two,” he says.
The phenomenon is not new
Compared to the results of Science that focus on covid-19, another survey with more than 44,000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), editor of the aforementioned journal, asked about the entire career of a researcher. There, 51% reported receiving at least one type of harassment, sometimes continuing for decades.
Although the results [de la AAAS] are impossible to directly compare with the covid-19 survey, indicate that bullying is neither new nor limited to a pandemic
“Although the results [de la AAAS] are impossible to directly compare with Covid-19 research, indicate that bullying is not new or limited to a pandemic,” says O’Grady. However, there was a time when polarization has escalated, becoming the first experience of abuse for some scientists and making matters worse for others.
Researchers studying the dynamics behind these attacks on scientists point to phenomena such as ‘network bullying’, that is, abuse by swarms of people who share social media networks. Also by experts, politicians and commentators who deliberately seek conflict on the social networks.
Reference:
Cathleen O’Grady. “In the line of fire. Scientists were persecuted for years. But research by Science shows that the pandemic has made matters much worse for some.” Science (March 2022).