When it comes to the city of science, we who work in environmental and occupational health live in a bad neighborhood. We are often at the center of controversial issues and in the crossfire of competing economic and social interests. This means that we often take abuse: Our motives are questioned; we are insulted as either corporate toadies or wild-eyed activists; our character is assaulted; and our facts are often met with junk science. For most of us, this unpleasantness simply comes with the territory and we ignore it. However, uncivil and malicious behavior takes its toll, if not on us personally then on the scientific enterprise as a whole.¹

Likewise, the high visibility of researchers in contentious areas of public policy, such as climate change and epidemiology, puts them at high risk for politically motivated attacks and being “made an example of” for investigation that supports one side or the other. The tone and attacks on both proponents and skeptics of climate change science are an example of how science that is in fact quite clear and, while complicated in detail, is not that difficult to understand, can still bring out the worst in people, even in fellow scientists.^2,3

It would be understandable if the flak came only from vested interests or from confused members of the public. However, it sometimes comes from colleagues with different convictions or interpretations. Scientists, being people, have the frailties of real human beings and may indulge is ad hominem personal attacks, reputational smears, bullying, name-calling, and defamation.

As a department chair and administrator, I have seen it in personal rivalries and especially among desperate faculty members who are losing out in competitive grants, promotion, and tenure. Spreading rumors is so common as to be taken for granted in academic life. In the academic community, we have seen reports of fraud, untrue reports of dual publication (publications based on different data from the same population do not qualify), and false allegations of conflict of interest used in an attempt to sideline rivals. (We have also seen plenty of true examples.)

One quick and unscrupulous way to get ahead in local competition is to attack a colleague surreptitiously and to “take down” a rival. Attacks on a personal level are likely to get more frequent and more severe. One example is the “nano-imaging feud,”⁴ in which a dispute over interpretation by Francesco Stellaci (then at MIT) of an image at the limits of resolution led to personal attacks in the blogosphere and to four formal misconduct charges against him, all of which were investigated and found to have no merit. Such reputational assaults are likely to become more frequent in the future.

In the absence of traceable documentation, it is impossible to know whether uncivil and malicious behavior is increasing as a problem. Rarely do these battles emerge in the open literature, like the nano-imaging feud. Uncivil and malicious behavior becomes known only through anecdotes because very little of this information is shared and nobody is keeping track. (I do not think we would want an overseer with the power to do so.) With the advent and proliferation of scientific blogs and open access, it is quite likely that there will be an eruption of such behavior in the guise of postpublication review for open-source publications. “Trolls” are already everywhere to be found in the blogosphere, and they do not exempt science.⁵ On the other hand, incidents of online abuse may provide a helpful measure to monitor trends in unprofessional behavior.

Scientific misconduct is not limited to scientific fraud, data manipulation, ethical infractions, misallocation of funds, suppression of inconvenient results, inappropriate influence on publication, and plagiarism. Organized science (such as funding agencies, universities, journals, and societies) know these traditional types of misconduct and have ways of coming to grips with them. However, uncivil behavior and malicious misconduct cannot be so easily dealt with by organized science. Organized science cannot effectively resolve this form of scientific misconduct because it occurs on the local level, between individuals in an academic atmosphere that allows free expression, and is often difficult to document. It is up to the individual to defend his or her own reputation.

This unpleasant underside of science is more than embarrassing and confusing to the public. Certainly, such behavior is profoundly dispiriting and misleading to students and trainees and gives ammunition to those who question science's special role as a way of knowing the material world. More fundamental, uncivil behavior is an obstacle to progress in science because it cuts off or constrains meaningful discussion, which is the essential process of scientific evaluation of what facts mean. Personalizing a difference of opinion tends to shut down rational discourse, puts up barriers to discussion, impedes follow-up questions, inhibits brainstorming on what comes next, and raises defensiveness and guarded behavior. It lessens motivation to do research in certain areas. (Who, for example, could be enthusiastic about investigating colony collapse in bees knowing that any explanation other than neonicotinoid toxicity will bring heaps of scorn and abuse?)

Is it possible to correct uncivil and malicious behavior in science and enforce some sort of code of conduct? Probably not, at least not without sacrificing too much that is essential to the enterprise and our values! Unless the behavior is illegal or violates agency regulations or scientific norms, the scientific community cannot deal with uncivil behavior in the same way it deals with scientific misbehavior and fraud. Uncivil behavior in science, like unruly speech in a democracy, occurs in a privileged and protected space that allows unrestricted free expression; liberty is always the higher value. Constraining free speech and discussion is worse than the offense. Responding to personal abuse by formal complaints to universities, agencies, and organizations merely escalates and draws attention to the unfair allegations or insults. Resorting to defamation (libel) laws rarely provides satisfaction and is very expensive. Retaliation merely keeps the destructive cycle spinning and never brings true satisfaction. Shunning or isolating the perpetrator does not work in an open society like science, is open to abuse itself, and risks inhibiting collaboration and broader interaction.

One might think that this should not matter in the end, that science, being objective, can easily rise above crude and prejudicial behavior and dysfunctional relationships or that critical acuity in science might even be enhanced by personal conflict. However, uncivil and malicious behavior is not just unpleasant. It can be highly destructive for science.

In the end, containing uncivil and malicious behavior in science is achieved by teaching, role modeling, socialization into the community of science, and rebuttal. They may be weak corrections, but to strengthen them risks far worse in the delicate balance of scientific discourse.