Do you really want to see fraud cases
brought against scientists who make mistakes or push the results of knowledge and point to new directions for research?
Narasimha wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the «actions
taken against the scientists could demoralize the Indian Space Research Organization's scientific community, and adversely affect its ability to take the kind of technological initiatives — not always without risk — that are the hallmark of an innovative organization.»
Nor would it be necessary to concoct
accusations against scientist critics as a first - resort defense of the issue, and there'd be no need to tie it into unrelated social injustice issues, or collaborate with governments via any army in order to ram it down everybody's throats.
In an embarrassing display of scientific illiteracy and political gullibility, news organizations have repeatedly played into the deniers» hands: Implicitly endorsing their unfounded accusations of fraud
against scientists whose emails were stolen, by portraying a single error in a thousand - page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as reason to question all of mainstream climate science.
Greenpeace is engaged in a scurrilous intimidation
campaign against scientists who dare to differ from the climate - alarmist orthodoxy — and who are associated with The Heartland Institute's efforts to promote their research.
Mark Jacobsen's
lawsuit against scientists and PNAS who published a rebuttal of his paper definitely meets the requirement of damage to his reputation, but it isn't libel if the statements are correct or at least justified by evidence and arguments.
Finally, Rothwell empathizes with and offers explanations for many of the critiques that are rightfully or wrongfully
made against scientists by those who are less familiar with what being a scientist really means.
Midgley is not hostile to religion and scores
points against scientists and others who think that theology has not changed since the condemnation of Galileo.
When police uncovered an illicit drugs factory in the laboratories of a respected pharmaceuticals firm, they exposed the need for
safeguards against scientists who turn to crime
On the contrary, as the Oxburgh panel's final report (pdf) put it, the attacks
leveled against the scientists «showed a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by the CRU.»
Plotting a
revolution against the scientists in control, this insurgent «naturalist» society targets the gene bank and central radio tower in a war to wrest the world from the scientists and from genetic perfection.
«This is not a war»
against scientists outside of Catalonia, says physicist Jordi Fraxedas, coordinator of the universities and research sector at the Catalan National Assembly, an independentist organization.
Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that
allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails.
There's also the risk, a decade or two from now, of a
backlash against scientists, as ridiculous as that might be: «Why didn't you TELL us it was going to be so bad??!»
The lawsuit, filed Monday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, argued that the two conservative outlets and two writers named in the suit, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, «maliciously accused (Mann) of academic fraud, the most fundamental defamation that can be
levied against a scientist and a professor.»
Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks
against scientists continue.
While antiscience Congressmen write fallacy - laden op - eds and elected officials run witch
hunts against scientists, the Earth is getting warmer.
Seismic uncertainty The
case against the scientists and De Bernardinis states that they did not do their duty in communicating risk to the citizens of L'Aquila and holds them responsible for manslaughter.
• Educate researchers about their legal rights and responsibilities on issues surrounding their work; • Serve as a clearinghouse for information related to legal actions
taken against scientists; and • Recruit and assist lawyers representing these scientists.
Despite repeated rejection by the scientific community, it has spawned a movement, led to thousands of legal claims, and even triggered occasional harassment and threats
against scientists whose research appears to discredit it.