SMC: Advice for Researchers Experiencing Harassment

Three Chord Monty said:
However, some researchers working on high-profile subjects that attract controversy, such as radiation, climate change, animal research, chronic fatigue syndrome/ME, or gender studies, have also found themselves targeted by people who have extreme views about their research."
Click to expand...

And chronic fatigue syndrome/ME is a high-profile subject? :confused: I think those BPS researchers might have delusions of grandeur. As important as the subject is to us, I haven't seen 'climate-change equivalently sized' marches in the street for, or against, GET yet.
 
WillowJ said:
These guys might want to look up "Abuse of Authority" and see if anything there sounds familiar or looks out of their own mirror.
Click to expand...
Pretending to be the real victim is a hallmark behavior of bullies. It doesn't necessarily mean that, as we are definitely victims of bullying and harassment and claiming so rightfully. Difference is nobody believes us because of bullies who force their ideology into actual medical malpractice from a position of absolute power.

But in the case of the blatant misuse of the SMC's role and influence, it absolutely is a case of projecting their behavior onto their own victims. This is such clear abuse of a position of authority and public trust in the pursuit of self-interest it could serve as a case study. The claims are so laughable with the made-up threatening letters and 4 tweets, which are actually accurate, leading to "woe is us, our life is over, we are silenced" on an international platform. And the absurd claims of "powerful lobby", unnamed of course because they don't exist whereas the lobby group BACME does just that.
 
Hutan said:
And chronic fatigue syndrome/ME is a high-profile subject? :confused: I think those BPS researchers might have delusions of grandeur. As important as the subject is to us, I haven't seen 'climate-change equivalently sized' marches in the street for, or against, GET yet.
Click to expand...
Just like it's a "high priority" subject at the MRC. High priority, unless you expect any credible research to be funded, of course.
 
Hutan said:
Possible BPS approaches to a report of there being no hot water coming out of the tap:
1. Publish an economic analysis showing how much money could be saved in power plant development if people realised that cold water coming out of the hot tap is perfectly fine.
2. Suggest that the perceived coldness of the water is rooted in the customer's perfectionist personality, as they have unreasonably high expectations of the temperature of the water coming out of the hot tap.
3. Get large government grants to offer cognitive behavioural therapy to help customers realise that cold water is actually hot compared to ice.
4. Change the unit of measure of the temperature of the water; 10 degrees Celsius becomes 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which sounds positively toasty. Declare that the plumbing intervention has been a success.
5. Accuse any customers dissatisfied with items above of hating plumbers or not following instructions sufficiently well.
6. Write press releases that say that it would be safer to be in Afghanistan than deal with people wanting hot water to come out of their tap.
7. Give fellow BPS plumbers bravery awards.

The BPS approach to a blocked toilet doesn't bear thinking about. No, best to keep them away from anything important. Perhaps put them in a quiet room with some plastic shopping bags to play with?
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
"cold water is actually hot compared to ice" :laugh:.
Thanks @Hutan! This made my day:)
 
However, some researchers working on high-profile subjects that attract controversy, such as radiation, climate change, animal research, chronic fatigue syndrome/ME, or gender studies, have also found themselves targeted by people who have extreme views about their research.
Click to expand...
[my bold]

Actually, scientists continuing to promote highly misleading results of their deeply flawed research into a human illness, is about as extreme as it gets. As it is for highly influential media organisations to deliberately and actively foster that.
 
We haven't been included in this as yet but my concern is that they would use it in the future

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...lamists-government-advisers-say-a4255756.html

"But it says that those who aggressively hound others who question their world view should also be be targeted in a new drive against hateful extremism.

It says they include some hardline animal rights activists, anti-Semites, environmental campaigners and some members of the hard Left.

Others in the category — to be determined by a person’s behaviour rather than their beliefs — include misogynist trolls who persistently vilify women online.

Sara Khan, who heads the commission, said the Government’s existing approach was “insufficient” and allowed the spread of hatred."
 
Andy said:
Click to expand...

The leaflet has one overriding omission: Are those objecting to your research right? Are their objections scientifically sound.

They seem to gloss over this rather important point. Providing strategies for researchers to counter these upstarts. This one for example, which is clearly a #1 strategy for providing sound scientific rebuttal:
Get support from key influencers – if you do respond to critical comments, tag influential handles in your reply to get your community behind you.
Click to expand...
 
Barry said:
The leaflet has one overriding omission: Are those objecting to your research right? Are their objections scientifically sound.

They seem to gloss over this rather important point. Providing strategies for researchers to counter these upstarts. This one for example, which is clearly a #1 strategy for providing sound scientific rebuttal:
Click to expand...

I can't see the tweet this is based on but based on Barry's comment it would seem that this group of strategies has been around a while and is just now being put out there. The irony of this is that the problem the strategies address is of their own making (SMC). When it suits them they are easily capable of promoting lies to further political masters ends or just blind support of authority. Trust is broken.

At no point is there any critical thinking-- just promotion of authority. The whole point of journalistic reporting of science is to provide independent analysis and translate jargon into layman's understanding.

We saw strategy #1 in action when Wessely tagged Mike Godwin for support to show that PwME who were tweeting about PACE were just unhinged.

It didn't work. Their problem of course (as we well know) is that while the Wessely group may feel 'harrassed' they seem to forget that this strategy works best to protect researchers who stand for actual science when clearly the BPS group are frauds and influential people may end up checking the facts and calling them out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom